4.7 Article

Low-dose biplanar skeletal survey versus digital skeletal survey in multiple myeloma

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 8, Pages 2236-2245

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2812-3

Keywords

Multiple myeloma; Imaging; Radiography; Whole-body MRI; Radiography; Digital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate the low-dose biplanar (LDB) skeletal survey (SS) for the assessment of focal bone involvement in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) as compared with digital SS and to compare the two techniques in terms of image quality, patient comfort and radiation exposure. Fifty-six consecutive patients with newly diagnosed or first relapsed MM underwent LDB and digital SS on the same day. These were assessed by two radiologists for the detection of focal bone lesions. In the case of discordance, whole-body MR imaging was performed. Image quality, patient comfort and radiation dose were also assessed. Fifty-six patients (M:30, F:26, mean age, 62 years) with newly diagnosed (n = 21) or first relapse MM (n = 35) were enrolled. A total of 473 bone lesions in 46 patients (82 %) were detected. Out of that total, digital SS detected significantly more lesions than LDB SS (451 [95.35 %] versus 467 [98.73 %]), especially in osteopenic and obese patients. Overall patient satisfaction was greater with LDB SS (48.6 %) compared with digital SS (2.7 %). The radiation dose was significantly reduced (by a factor of 7.8) with the LDB X-ray device. Low-dose biplanar skeletal surveys cannot replace digital SS in all patients suffering from multiple myeloma. aEuro cent Low-dose biplanar skeletal surveys can readily assess bone lesions in multiple myeloma. aEuro cent In marked radiographic osteopenia and obesity, LDB SS diagnostic performance is reduced. aEuro cent Low-dose biplanar skeletal surveys cannot yet replace digital SS in all MM patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available