Abstract
Hematological malignancies represent a heterogeneous group with numerous subtypes, each exhibiting distinct courses and prognoses. They can be broadly categorized into three main groups: lymphomas, myelomas, and leukemias. In particular, F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (F-18 FDG PET/CT) is an indispensable imaging modality in the management of lymphomas and myelomas. However, the limitations of CT, including its low soft tissue resolution and inadequacies in bone marrow imaging, can pose challenges in the management of hematological malignancies. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with its high soft tissue contrast and superior sensitivity in evaluating bone marrow, complements the limitations of F-18 FDG PET/CT, thereby playing a crucial role in the management of these malignancies. Nonetheless, MRI is not without its drawbacks, such as the presence of artifacts, challenges in imaging lung parenchyma, and a relatively delayed depiction of treatment response. Recently, the introduction of F-18 FDG PET/MRI has combined the metabolic information provided by F-18 FDG with the high tissue contrast and additional functional data offered by MRI, effectively bridging the gaps left by each modality alone. Furthermore, the absence of additional ionizing radiation in MRI, as compared to CT, is a significant advantage, particularly in the assessment of lymphomas that are commonly observed in pediatric populations. In the evaluation of myeloma, the high resolution provided by MRI in assessing bone marrow infiltrations is particularly promising. However, several significant challenges remain, including attenuation correction issues in PET/MRI systems, artifacts, limited accessibility, difficulties in evaluating lung parenchyma, and relatively high costs. There is a need for more comprehensive studies to clearly establish the concordance between standardized uptake values across both systems. Although the current lack of sufficient studies on the role of PET/MRI in hematological malignancies precludes its inclusion in clinical guidelines, it seems inevitable that it will be incorporated as more research becomes available in the future.
Keywords: Hematological malignancies, lymphoma, myeloma, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma
References
Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74:12-49.
Mayerhoefer ME, Archibald SJ, Messiou C, Staudenherz A, Berzaczy D, Schöder H. MRI and PET/MRI in hematologic malignancies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;51:1325-1335.
Lin G, Zong X, Li Y, et al. Whole-body MRI Is an effective ımaging modality for hematological malignancy treatment response assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12:827777.
Arendt CT, Beeres M, Leithner D, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced imaging of pediatric thoracic lymphoma: is intravenous contrast really necessary? Eur Radiol. 2019;29:2553-2559.
Kirchner J, Deuschl C, Schweiger B, et al. Imaging children suffering from lymphoma: an evaluation of different 18F-FDG PET/MRI protocols compared to whole-body DW-MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1742-1750.
Jannusch K, Morawitz J, Schweiger B, et al. [18F]FDG PET/MRI in children suffering from lymphoma: does MRI contrast media make a difference? Eur Radiol. 2023;33:8366-8375.
Alaggio R, Amador C, Anagnostopoulos I, et al. The 5th edition of the World Health Organization classification of haematolymphoid tumours: lymphoid neoplasms. Leukemia. 2022;36:1720-1748.
Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Pileri SA, et al. The 2016 revision of the World Health Organization classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Blood. 2016;127:2375-2390.
Buske C, Hutchings M, Ladetto M, et al. ESMO Consensus Conference on malignant lymphoma: general perspectives and recommendations for the clinical management of the elderly patient with malignant lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:544-562.
Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3048-3058.
Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059-3068.
Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:571-578.
Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579-586.
Meignan M, Gallamini A, Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the First ınternational workshop on ınterim-PET-Scan in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257-1260.
Younes A, Hilden P, Coiffier B, et al. International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017). Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1436-1447.
Mayerhoefer ME, Archibald SJ, Messiou C, Staudenherz A, Berzaczy D, Schöder H. MRI and PET/MRI in hematologic malignancies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;51:1325-1335.
Berzaczy D, Haug A, Staber PB, et al. RECIL versus lugano for treatment response assessment in FDG-avid non-Hodgkin lymphomas: a head-to-head comparison in 54 patients. Cancers (Basel). 2019;12:9.
Kostakoglu L, Martelli M, Sehn LH, et al. A comparison of the prognostic performance of the Lugano 2014 and RECIL 2017 response criteria in patients with NHL from the phase III GOYA and GALLIUM trials. EJHaem. 2023;4:1042-1051.
Cottereau AS, El-Galaly TC, Becker S, et al. Predictive value of PET response combined with baseline metabolic tumor volume in peripheral T-cell lymphoma patients. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:589-595.
Mikhaeel NG, Smith D, Dunn JT, et al. Combination of baseline metabolic tumour volume and early response on PET/CT improves progression-free survival prediction in DLBCL. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1209-1219.
Meignan M, Cottereau AS, Versari A, et al. Baseline metabolic tumor volume predicts outcome in high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma: a pooled analysis of three multicenter studies. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3618-3626.
Wu X, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Pertovaara H, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI in early chemotherapy response evaluation of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma--a pilot study: comparison with 2-deoxy-2-fluoro- D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. NMR Biomed. 2011;24:1181-90.
Quarles Van Ufford HME, Kwee TC, Beek FJ, et al. Newly diagnosed lymphoma: initial results with whole-body T1-weighted, STIR, and diffusion-weighted MRI compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:662-669.
Lin C, Luciani A, Itti E, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for staging patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2027-2038.
Regacini R, Puchnick A, Shigueoka DC, Iared W, Lederman HM. Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging versus FDG-PET/CT for initial lymphoma staging: systematic review on diagnostic test accuracy studies. Sao Paulo Med J. 2015;133:141-150.
Herrmann K, Queiroz M, Huellner MW, et al. Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/MRI and WB-DW-MRI in the evaluation of lymphoma: a prospective comparison to standard FDG-PET/CT. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:1002.
Mayerhoefer ME, Karanikas G, Kletter K, et al. Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MRI for pretherapeutic assessment and staging of lymphoma: results of a prospective study in 140 patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:2984-2993.
Sher AC, Seghers V, Paldino MJ, et al. Assessment of sequential PET/MRI in comparison With PET/CT of pediatric lymphoma: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:623-631.
Ponisio MR, McConathy J, Laforest R, Khanna G. Evaluation of diagnostic performance of whole-body simultaneous PET/MRI in pediatric lymphoma. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46:1258-1268.
Verhagen M V., Menezes LJ, Neriman D, et al. 18F-FDG PET/MRI for staging and interim response assessment in pediatric and adolescent Hodgkin lymphoma: a prospective study with 18F-FDG PET/CT as the reference standard. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:1524-1530.
Heacock L, Weissbrot J, Raad R, et al. PET/MRI for the evaluation of patients with lymphoma: initial observations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:842-848.
Afaq A, Fraioli F, Sidhu H, et al. Comparison of PET/MRI With PET/CT in the Evaluation of disease status in lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:e1-e7.
Picardi M, Cavaliere C, Della Pepa R, et al. PET/MRI for staging patients with Hodgkin lymphoma: equivalent results with PET/CT in a prospective trial. Ann Hematol. 2021;100:1525-1535.
Atkinson W, Catana C, Abramson JS, et al. Hybrid FDG-PET/MR compared to FDG-PET/CT in adult lymphoma patients. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016;41:1338-1348.
Survival for myeloma | Cancer research UK.
Zadeh MZ, Raynor WY, Seraj SM, et al. Evolving roles of fluorodeoxyglucose and sodium fluoride in assessment of multiple myeloma patients: ıntroducing a novel method of PET quantification to overcome shortcomings of the existing approaches. PET Clin. 2019;14:341-352.
Edelstyn GA, Gillespie PJ, Grebbell FS. The radiological demonstration of osseous metastases. Experimental observations. Clin Radiol. 1967;18:158-162.
Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e538-e548.
Kosmala A, Weng AM, Heidemeier A, et al. Multiple myeloma and dual-energy CT: diagnostic accuracy of virtual noncalcium technique for detection of bone marrow ınfiltration of the spine and pelvis. Radiology. 2018;286:205-213.
Rodríguez-Laval V, Lumbreras-Fernández B, Aguado-Bueno B, Gómez-León N. Imaging of multiple myeloma: present and future. J Clin Med. 2024;13:264.
Hillengass J, Usmani S, Rajkumar SV, et al. International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e302-e312.
Rama S, Suh CH, Kim KW, Durieux JC, Ramaiya NH, Tirumani SH. Comparative performance of whole-body MRI and FDG PET/CT in evaluation of multiple myeloma treatment response: systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022;218:602-613.
Baur A, Stäbler A, Brüning R, Bartl R, Krödel A, Reiser M, Deimling M. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of bone marrow: differentiation of benign versus pathologic compression fractures. Radiology. 1998;207:349-356.
Filho AGO, Carneiro BC, Pastore D, et al. Whole-body imaging of multiple myeloma: diagnostic criteria. Radiographics. 2019;39:1077-1097.
Messiou C, Hillengass J, Delorme S, et al. Guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma: Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS). Radiology. 2019;291:5-13.
Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a consensus statement by the International Myeloma Working Group. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:e206-e217.
Messiou C, Porta N, Sharma B, et al. Prospective evaluation of whole-body MRI versus FDG PET/CT for lesion detection in participants with myeloma. Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2021;3:e210048.
Rasche L, Alapat D, Kumar M, et al. Combination of flow cytometry and functional imaging for monitoring of residual disease in myeloma. Leukemia. 2019;33:1713-1722.
Zadeh MZ, Raynor WY, Østergaard B, et al. Correlation of whole-bone marrow dual-time-point 18F-FDG, as measured by a CT-based method of PET/CT quantification, with response to treatment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;10:257-264.
Zirakchian Zadeh M. Significance of PET/CT imaging in myeloma assessment: exploring novel applications beyond osteolytic lesion detection and treatment response. Onco. 2024;4:15-36.
Garderet L, Kharroubi-Lakouas D, roos Weil D, et al. The role of PET-MRI in multiple myeloma patients. Blood. 2020;136:12.
Sachpekidis C, Hillengass J, Goldschmidt H, et al. Comparison of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in patients with multiple myeloma. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;5:469-478.
Soekojo C, Cheng LTJ, Peh WM, de Mel S, Ooi M, Nai YH, Reilhac A, Khor LK, Chng WJ. Clinical utility of PET/MRI in multiple myeloma. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2023;52:590-600.
Shah SN, Oldan JD. PET/MR imaging of multiple myeloma. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25:351-365.
