Open Journal Systems

The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT before and after the treatment of multiple myeloma: Our clinical experience

Kornelia Kajary ()
Zsuzsa Molnár ()


To evaluate the role of FDG PET/CT before and after the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in our clinical practice, data from 32 patients (before therapy: 10 patients; after therapy: 22 patients) and from 46 examinations (before therapy: 10; after: 36) with a median time of follow-up of 24 months (before the therapy) and 26 months (after the therapy) were evaluated. FDG PET/CT positivity was characterized by SUVmax >2.5, SUVmax >4.2, focal lesions (FLs) >3, and presence of extramedullary disease (EMD). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and the median overall survival (OS) for FDG PET/CT positive patients were shorter than for negative patients, according to all parameters. Before the therapy, significant correlation was found only between PFS and the number of FLs (p = 0.033). After the treatment, significant correlation was found between PFS and SUVmax (cut-off value 2.5: p < 0.001; cut off value 4.2: p < 0.001), between PFS and the number of FLs (p = 0.009), and between PFS and the presence of EMD (p < 0.001). Significant correlation was found between OS and SUVmax (cut-off value = 2.5, p < 0.001 and 4.2, p = 0.009), between OS and the number of FLs (p = 0.007), and between OS and the presence of EMD (p = 0.022). Our results confirmed the reliability and good prognostic value of FDG PET/CT in MM.


multiple myeloma; FDG PET/CT; progression-free survival; overall survival

Full Text:



Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009; 23(1): 3–9. doi: 10.1038/leu.2008.291.

Hanrahan CJ, Christensen CR, Crim JR. Current concepts in the evaluation of multiple myeloma with MR imaging and FDG PET/CT. Radiographics 2010; 30(1): 127–142. doi: 10.1148/rg.301095066.

Terpos E, Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos LA. The role of imaging in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma in 2016. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2016; 35: e407–e417. doi: 10.14694/EDBK_159074.

Durie BGM. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: Description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42(11): 1539–1543. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.11.037.

Hur J, Yoon CS, Ryu YH, Yun MJ, Suh JS. Efficacy of multidetector row computed tomography of the spine in patients with multiple myeloma: Comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007; 31(3): 342–347. doi: 10.1097/01.rct.0000237820.41549.c9.

Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL, Shaughnessy JD Jr, van Rhee F, et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 2009; 114(10): 2068–2076. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-03-213280.

Breyer RJ 3rd, Mulligan ME, Smith SE, Line BR, Badros AZ. Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2006; 35(9): 632–640. doi:10.1007/s00256-006-0127-z.

Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, Englaro E, Castellucci P, et al. A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2007; 92(1): 50–55.

Fonti R, Salvatore B, Quarantelli M, Sirignano C, Segreto S, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-MIBI, and MRI in evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 2008; 49(2): 195–200. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.107.045641.

Shortt CP, Gleeson TG, Breen KA, McHugh J, O'Connell MJ, et al. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192(4): 980–986. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1633.

Zamagni E, Nanni C, Mancuso K, Tacchetti P, Pezzi A, et al. PET/CT Improves the definition of complete response and allows to detect otherwise unidentifiable skeletal progression in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21(19): 4384–4390. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0396.

Caldarella C, Treglia G, Isgrò MA, Treglia I, Giordano A. The role of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the response to treatment in patients with multiple myeloma. Int J Mol Imaging 2012; 2012: 175803. doi: 10.1155/2012/175803.

Mihailovic J, Goldsmith SJ. Multiple myeloma: 18F-FDGPET/CT and diagnostic imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2015; 45(1): 16–31. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2014.08.002.

Dammacco F, Rubini G, Ferrari C, Vacca A, Racanelli V. 18F-FDG PET/CT: A review of diagnostic and prognostic features in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Clin Exp Med 2015; 15(1): 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10238-014-0308-3.

Durie BG, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer 1975; 36(3): 842–854.

Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, Hawkins R. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184(4): 1199–1204. doi:10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841199.

van Lammeren-Venema D, Regelink JC, Riphagen II, Zweegman S, Hoekstra OS, et al. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in assessment of myeloma-related bone disease: A systematic review. Cancer 2012; 118(8): 1971–1981. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26467.

Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, McKenzie A, Rischin D, et al. Positron emission tomography is superior to

computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21(7): 1285–1292.

Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, Zannetti B, Englaro E, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 2011; 118(23): 5989–5995. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-361386.

Nanni C, Zamagni E, Versari A, Chauvie S, Bianchi A, et al. Image interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma: A new proposal from an Italian expert panel. IMPeTUs (Italian Myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016; 43(3): 414–421. doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3200-9.

Moulopoulos LA, Varma DG, Dimopoulos MA, Leeds NE, Kim EE, et al. Multiple myeloma: Spinal MR imaging in patients with untreated newly diagnosed disease. Radiology 1992; 185(3): 833–840. doi: 10.1148/radiology.185.3.1438772.

Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Smith TL, Weber DM, Delasalle KB, et al. Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13(1): 251–256.

Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, Tricot G, Anaissie E, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: Diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(9): 1121–1128. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.5803.

Regelink JC, Minnema MC, Terpos E, Kamphuis MH, Raijmakers PG, et al. Comparison of modern and conventional imaging techniques in establishing multiple myeloma-related bone disease: A systematic review. Br J Haematol 2013; 162(1): 50–61. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12346.

Waheed S, Mitchell A, Usmani S, Epstein J, Yaccoby S, et al. Standard and novel imaging methods for multiple myeloma: Correlates with prognostic laboratory variables including gene expression profiling data. Haematologica 2013; 98(1): 71–78. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2012.066555.

Spinnato P, Bazzocchi A, Brioli A, Nanni C, Zamagni E, et al. Contrast enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG PET-CT in the assessment of multiple myeloma: A comparison of results in different phases of the disease. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81(12): 4013–4018. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.06.028.

Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Weber MA, Bäuerle T, Ayyaz S, et al. Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(9): 1606–1610. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5356.

Kastritis E, Moulopoulos LA, Terpos E, Koutoulidis V, Dimopoulos MA. The prognostic importance of the presence of more than one focal lesion in spine MRI of patients with asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2014; 28(12): 2402–2403. doi: 10.1038/leu.2014.230.

Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, et al. International myeloma working group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15(12): e538–e548. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5.

Zamagni E, Nanni C, Gay F, Pezzi A, Patriarca F, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT focal, but not osteolytic, lesions predict the progression of smoldering myeloma to active disease. Leukemia 2016; 30(2): 417–422. doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.291.

Siontis B, Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, Drake MT, Lacy MQ, et al. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography in the diagnostic evaluation of smoldering multiple myeloma: Identification of patients needing therapy. Blood Cancer J 2015; 5: e364. doi: 10.1038/bcj.2015.87.

Moreau P, Attal M, Karlin L, Garderet L, Facon T, et al. Prospective evaluation of MRI and PET/CT at diagnosis and before maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial. Blood 2015; 126(23): 395.

Khalafallah AA, Snarski A, Heng R, Hughes R, Renu S, et al. Assessment of whole body MRI and sestamibi technetium-99m bone marrow scan in prediction of multiple myeloma disease progression and outcome: A prospective comparative study. BMJ Open 2013; 3(1): e002025. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002025.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Kornelia Kajary, Zsuzsa Molnár

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.