4.2 Article

A comparison of fluorine-18 fluoro-deoxyglucose PET and technetium-99m sestamibi in assessing patients with multiple myeloma

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 72, 期 1, 页码 32-37

出版社

BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD
DOI: 10.1046/j.0902-4441.2004.00177.x

关键词

multiple myeloma; PET; sestamibi; imaging; plasmacytoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The extent of disease in patients with multiple myeloma or related conditions may be difficult to assess. In previous small studies, both FDG-PET (PET) and Tc-99m sestamibi scans (MIBI) have identified sites of occult disease in myeloma. We reviewed the results for patients at our institution who have undergone PET and/or MIBI scans to assess myeloma. Concordance between the scans, ability to identify otherwise occult disease and impact on patient management was assessed. Results: Thirty-six patients had greater than or equal to1 PET scan, 56 had greater than or equal to1 MIBI scan and 23 had concurrent PET and MIBI scans. MIBI detected additional sites to skeletal survey in 38 of 56 (68%) cases. PET detected additional sites to skeletal survey in 18 of 36 (50%) cases. MIBI generally detected more disease sites than PET. PET and MIBI were concordant in eight of 23 (35%) cases. The percentage plasma cell infiltrate within the marrow correlated with the number of sites detected by MIBI, but not by PET. In 23 of 69 cases (33%), scan results impacted on management, particularly by upstaging disease at diagnosis and by recognising subsequent disease progression. The results were also helpful for evaluating the presence of ongoing disease activity in previously irradiated sites remaining abnormal on skeletal survey following treatment. Conclusions: MIBI and PET are useful additional diagnostic tools for detecting otherwise occult sites of myeloma. The use of MIBI PET should particularly be considered in the evaluation of a patient with an early-stage plasma cell dyscrasia to exclude the presence of more extensive disease.

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

4.2
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