Magnetic resonance evaluation of multiple myeloma at 3.0 tesla: How do bone marrow plasma cell percentage and selection of protocols affect lesion conspicuity?

5Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare various pulse sequences in terms of percent contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for detection of focal multiple myeloma lesions and to assess the dependence of lesion conspicuity on the bone marrow plasma cell percent (BMPC%). Materials and Methods: Sagittal T1-weighted FSE, fat-suppressed T2-weighted FSE (FS- T2 FSE), fast STIR and iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) imaging of the lumbar spine were performed (n = 45). Bone marrow (BM)-focal myeloma lesion percent contrast and CNR were calculated. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were obtained between percent contrast, CNR and BMPC%. Percent contrasts and CNRs were compared among the three imaging sequences. Results: BM-focal lesion percent contrasts, CNRs and BMPC% showed significant negative correlations in the three fatsuppression techniques. Percent contrast and CNRs were significantly higher for FS-T2 FSE than for STIR (P<0.01, P<0.05, respectively), but no significant differences were found among the three fat-suppression methods in the low tumor load BM group. Conclusion: The higher BMPC% was within BM, the less conspicuous the focal lesion was on fat-suppressed MRI. The most effective protocol for detecting focal lesions was FS-T2 FSE. In the high tumor load BM group, no significant differences in lesion conspicuity were identified among the three fat-suppression techniques. © 2014 Takasu et al.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Takasu, M., Tamura, T., Kaichi, Y., Tanitame, K., Akiyama, Y., Date, S., … Awai, K. (2014). Magnetic resonance evaluation of multiple myeloma at 3.0 tesla: How do bone marrow plasma cell percentage and selection of protocols affect lesion conspicuity? PLoS ONE, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085931

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free