Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of whole-body 64-slice multidetector computed tomography and conventional radiography in staging of multiple myeloma

  • Musculoskeletal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study compares the sensitivity of whole-body multidetector CT (MDCT) and conventional radiography (CR) in the staging of multiple myeloma (MM). Twenty-nine patients with MM underwent a staging examination both by MDCT and CR. CT examination was performed with a collimation of 64×0.6 mm, a tube potential of 100 kVp, an effective tube current-time product of 100 mAs and automatic dose modulation as low-dose protocol. Number, size and diagnostic confidence of osteolytic lesions were determined and compared. The effective dose of MDCT and CR was assessed. Using MDCT, the detection of osteolysis was increased seven-fold concerning the spine. Ninety-seven lesions in 18 patients were detected exclusively by MDCT. The detection rate concerning the spine, pelvic skeleton and thoracic cage was significantly higher (p≤0.001), and diagnostic confidence was increased by MDCT (p<0.02) compared to CR. Therapy was changed after MDCT in 18.2% of the patients with a clinical suspicion of progressive disease. The estimated effective dose of MDCT (4.8 mSv) and CR (1.7 mSv) was comparable. In conclusion, MDCT has a significantly higher sensitivity and reliability in the detection of osteolysis than CR and can be recommended as standard imaging method in the staging of MM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Durie BGM, Salmon SE (1982) The current status and future prospects of treatment for multiple myeloma. Clin Haematol 11:181–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ludwig H (1986) Klinik de Multiplen Myeloms. Onkologe 5:297–306

    Google Scholar 

  3. Durie BGM (1986) Stanging and kinetics of multiple myeloma. Semin Oncol 13:300–309

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Durie BGM, Salmon SE (1975) A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma: correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment and survival. Cancer 36:842–854

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Durie B, Kyle R, Belch A, et al (2003) Myeloma management guidelines: a consensus report from the Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation. Haematol J 4:379–398

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mulligan ME (2005) Imaging techniques used in the diagnosis, staging, and follow-up of patients with myeloma. Acta Radiol 46:716–724

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Gehbauer G, Schmitz-Rode T, Blaum M, Fabry U, Günther RW (2002) MDCT of the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography. AJR 178:1729–1436

    Google Scholar 

  8. Horger M, Claussen CD, Bross-Bach U, Vonthein R, Trabold T, Heuschmid M, Pfannenberg C (2005) Whole-body low-dose multidetector row-CT in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: an alternative to conventional radiography. Eur J Radiology 54:289–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Althen JN (2005) Automatic tube-current modulation in CT–a comparison between different solutions. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:308–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mulkens TH, Bellinck P, Baeyaert M, Ghysen D, Van Dijck X, Mussen E, Venstermans C, Termote JL (2005) Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation. Radiology 237:213–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ewen K (1998) Moderne Bildgebung. Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, New York, pp 35–44

    Google Scholar 

  12. Le Heron JC (1992) Estimation of effective dose to the patient during medical x-ray examinations from measurements of the dose-area product. Phys Med Biol 37:2117–2126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stamm G, Nagel HD (2002) CT-Expo-ein neues Programm zur Dosisabschätzung im CT. Röfo 174:1570–1576

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Boccardo M, Pileri A (1997) Diagnosis, prognosis and standard treatment of multiple myeloma. Haematol Oncol Clin N Am 11:111–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tertti R, Alanen A, Remes K (1995) The value of magnstic resonance imaging in screening myeloma lesions of the lumbar spine. Brit J Haematol 91:658–660

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lecouvert FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, Maldague B, Ferrant A, Michaux JL, Vande Berg BC (1999) Skeletal survey in advanced multiple myeloma: radiographic versus MR imaging survey. Brit J Haematol 106:35–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stäbler A, Baur A, Bartl R, Munker R, Lamerz R, Reiser MF (1996) Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma: assessment of focal and diffuse growth patterns in marrow correlated with biopsies and survival rates. AJR:1029–1036

  18. Schick F (2005) Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol: 946–959

  19. Salomon A, Rahamani R, Seligsohn U, Ben-Artzi F (1984) Multiple myeloma: early vertebral involvement assessed by computerised tomography. Skeletal Radiol 11:258–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schreiman JS, McLeod RA, Kyle RA, Beabout JW (1985) Multiple myeloma: evaluation by CT. Radiology 154:483–486

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Scutellari PN, Galeotti R, Leprotti S, Piva N, Spanedda R (1997) Role of computerized tomography in the diagnosis of bone disease in multiple myeloma. Radiol Med (Torino) 93:669–675

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Baur-Melnyk A, Reiser M (2004) Staging of Multiple Myeloma with MRI: comparison to MSCT and conventional radiography. Radiologe 44:874–881

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zwirewich CV, Mayo JR, Muller NL (1991) Low-dose high-resolution CT of lung parenchyma. Radiology 180:413–417

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee KS, Primack SL, Staples CA, Mayo JR, Aldrich JE, Muller NL (1994) Chronic infiltrative lung disease: comparison of diagnostic accuracies of radiography and low- and conventional-dose thin-section CT. Radiology 56:521–525

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dammert S, Funke M, Merten HA, Obernauer S, Grabbe E (2002) Multislice helical CT (MSCT) for mid-facial trauma: Optimization of parameters for scanning and reconstruction. Röfo 174:874–879

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tack D, Widelec J, De Maertelaer V, Bailly JM, Delcour C, Gevenois PA (2003) Comparison between low-dose and standard-dose multidetector CT in patients with suspected chronic sinusitis. AJR 181:939–944

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hagtvedt T, Aalokken TM, Notthellen J, Kolbenstvedt A (2003) A new low-dose CT examination compared with standard-dose CT in the diagnosis of acute sinusitis. Eur Radiology 13:976–980

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Luz O, Buchgeister M, Klabunde M, Trabold T, Kopp AF, Claussen CD, Heuschmid M (2007) Evaluation of dose exposure in 64-slice CT colonography. Eur Radiol DOI 10.1007/s00330-007-0601-6

  29. Cohnen M, Poll LW, Puettmann C, Ewen K, Saleh A, Mödder U (2003) Effective doses in standard protocols for multi-slice CT scanning. Eur Radiology 13:1148–1153

    Google Scholar 

  30. Husstedt H, Prokop M, Becker H (1998) [Window width as a dosage-relevant factor in high-contrast structures in CT]. Rofo 168:139–143

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ghanem N, Lohmann C, Engelhardt M, Pache G, Uhl M, Saueressig U et al. (2006) Whole-body MRI in the detection of bone marrow infiltration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological skeletal survey. Eur Radiology 16:1005–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nanni C, Zamagni e, Mohsen F, Castellucci P, Tosi P, Cangini D, Salizzoni E, Canini R, Cavo M, Fanti S (2006) Role of 18-F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:525–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Walde TA, Weiland DE, Leung SB, Kitamura N, Sychterz CJ, Engh Jr CA, Claus AM, Potter HG, Engh Sr CA (2005) Comparison of CT, MRI, and radiographs in assessing pelvic osteolysis: a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 437:138–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Diagnostische Radiologie der Universität Düsseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Patric Kröpil, Lars B. Fritz, Dirk Blondin, Ulrich Mödder & Mathias Cohnen

  2. Klinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Klinische Immunologie der Universität Düsseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Roland Fenk & Guido Kobbe

Authors
  1. Patric Kröpil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roland Fenk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lars B. Fritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dirk Blondin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guido Kobbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ulrich Mödder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mathias Cohnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patric Kröpil.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kröpil, P., Fenk, R., Fritz, L.B. et al. Comparison of whole-body 64-slice multidetector computed tomography and conventional radiography in staging of multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol 18, 51–58 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0738-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0738-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation