Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Apr 15;11(4):706.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11040706.

Comparison of [18F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis

Kota Yokoyama  1 , Junichi Tsuchiya  1 , Ukihide Tateishi  1
Affiliations
Review

Comparison of [18F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis

Kota Yokoyama et al. Diagnostics (Basel). .

Abstract

The present study was designed to assess the additional value of 2-deoxy-2[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the treatment response assessment of multiple myeloma (MM). We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies to compare the detectability of treatment response of [18F]FDG PET/CT and MRI in treated MM. We defined detecting a good therapeutic effect as positive, and residual disease as negative. We determined the sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated the positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR), and made summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) using hierarchical regression models. The pooled analysis included six studies that comprised 278 patients. The respective performance characteristics (95% confidence interval (CI)) of [18F]FDG PET/CT and MRI were as follows: sensitivity of 80% (56% to 94%) and 25% (19% to 31%); specificity of 58% (44% to 71%) and 83% (71% to 91%); diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 6.0 (3.0-12.0) and 1.7 (0.7-2.7); positive LR of 1.8 (1.3-2.4) and 1.4 (0.7-2.7); and negative LR of 0.33 (0.21-0.53) and 0.81 (0.62-1.1). In the respective SROC curves, the area under the curve was 0.77 (SE, 0.038) and 0.59 (SE, 0.079) and the Q* index was 0.71 and 0.57. Compared with MRI, [18F]FDG PET/CT had higher sensitivity and better DOR and SROC curves. Compared with MRI, [18F]FDG PET/CT had greater ability to detect the treatment assessment of MM.

Keywords: MRI; PET/CT; [18F]FDG PET; multiple myeloma; treatment response assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram of included articles. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Quality assessment of the included studies using QUADAS-2.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots of the sensitivity and specificity and the pooled diagnostic performance of [18F]FDG PET/CT and MRI.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) for the diagnostic performance of [18F]FDG PET/CT and MRI. The size of the circle diamond indicates the weight of each study in [18F]FDG PET/CT (black curve) and MRI (red curve) respectively. The area under the SROC curve is 0.76 for [18F]FDG PET/CT and 0.59 for MRI.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rajkumar S.V., Dimopoulos M.A., Palumbo A., Blade J., Merlini G., Mateos M.-V., Kumar S., Hillengass J., Kastritis E., Richardson P., et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e538–e548. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rajkumar S.V. Multiple myeloma: 2014 Update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am. J. Hematol. 2014;89:998–1009. doi: 10.1002/ajh.23810. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sager S., Ergül N., Ciftci H., Cetin G., Güner S.I., Cermik T.F. The value of FDG PET/CT in the initial staging and bone marrow involvement of patients with multiple myeloma. Skelet. Radiol. 2011;40:843–847. doi: 10.1007/s00256-010-1088-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zaidi H., Montandon M.-L., Alavi A. The Clinical Role of Fusion Imaging Using PET, CT, and MR Imaging. Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. N. Am. 2010;18:133–149. doi: 10.1016/j.mric.2009.09.010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hillengass J., Usmani S., Rajkumar S.V., Durie B.G.M., Mateos M.-V., Lonial S., Joao C., Anderson K.C., García-Sanz R., Riva E., et al. International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e302–e312. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30309-2. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources