4.6 Article

Prognostic Impact of Metabolic Heterogeneity in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Using Heterogeneity 18F-FDG PET/CT

期刊

CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 46, 期 10, 页码 790-796

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003773

关键词

metabolic heterogeneity; F-18-FDG PET; SUVmax; MTV; multiple myelorna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that high MH-SUVmax predicted poor prognosis in patients with multiple myeloma, especially in those with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities.
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of metabolic heterogeneity (MH) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed MH with F-18-FDG PET/CT in 203 patients with newly diagnosed MM. Metabolic heterogeneity was estimated using the area under the curve of the cumulative SUV volume histogram. To evaluate MH, we selected 2 lesions: MH-SUVmax a lesion with SUVmax and MH-metabolic tumor volume (MTV), a lesion with the largest MTV. Results: Metabolic heterogeneity from an MH-SUVmax lesion showed more prognostic relevance than that from a lesion with the largest MTV The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were significantly lower in the high-MH-SUVmax group than in the low-MH-SUV group (median PFS: 25.2 vs 33.9 months; median OS: 41.6 vs 112.0 months; P = 0.004 and 0.046, respectively), whereas high MH-SUVmax retained independent prognostic power on multivariate analysis. Even among patients with high whole-body MTV, those with high MH-SUVmax tended to show poorer prognosis than those without (median PFS, 23.8 vs 30.2 months; P= 0.085). Moreover, patients with high MH-SUVmax and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities showed dismal outcomes even with standard treatment (median PFS and OS, 10.0 and 33.3 months, respectively). Conclusions: Our results suggested that high MH-SUVmax based on pretreatment with F-18-FDG PET/CT is a novel prognostic factor for cases of MM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据