Multiple Myeloma: Molecular Imaging with C-Methionine PET/CT—Initial Experience

Published Online:Feb 1 2007https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2422051980

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively assess molecular imaging of multiple myeloma (MM) by using the radiolabeled amino acid carbon 11 (¹¹C) methionine and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT).

Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the institutional local ethics committee and the national radiation protection authorities. All patients with MM and control patients gave written informed consent. Nineteen patients with MM (11 women, eight men; age range, 42–64 years) and 10 control patients with hyperparathyroidism without hematologic diseases (six women, four men; age range, 43–75 years) underwent PET/CT 20 minutes after injection of a mean of 1.0 GBq ± 0.2 (standard deviation) ¹¹C-methionine. Presence and extent of CT-assessed tumor manifestations and ¹¹C-methionine bone marrow (BM) uptake were determined on the basis of maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max). BM imaging patterns, normal BM, and maximal lesion ¹¹C-methionine uptake in patients with MM were compared with those in control patients. In two patients with MM, sulfur 35 (³⁵S) methionine uptake in freshly isolated BM plasma cells was measured. Values for SUV_max of groups were compared by using the Mann-Whitney test on a per-patient basis.

Results:³⁵S-methionine uptake of plasma cells was five- to sixfold higher than in normal BM cells. ¹¹C-methionine BM uptake in control patients was homogeneous and low. All patients with MM except one with exclusively extramedullary myeloma had ¹¹C-methionine–positive lesions. Maximal lesion and normal BM ¹¹C-methionine mean SUV_max were 10.2 ± 3.5 and 4.3 ± 2.0, respectively, and thus were significantly higher than that of BM in the control group (mean, 1.8 ± 0.3; P < .001). Extramedullary MM was clearly visible in three patients (mean SUV_max, 7.2 ± 2.4). Additional ¹¹C-methionine–positive lesions in normal cancellous bone were found in nearly all patients with MM. In pretreated patients with MM, a moderate fraction of osteolytic lesions had no ¹¹C-methionine uptake.

Conclusion: On the basis of increased methionine uptake in plasma cells, active MM can be imaged with ¹¹C-methionine PET/CT.

References

1 Munshi NC, Anderson KC. Plasma cell neoplasms. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. 7th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005. Google Scholar
2 Durie BG, Kyle RA, Belch A, et al. Myeloma management guidelines: a consensus report from the Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation. Hematol J 2003; 4: 379–398. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3 Durie BG, Waxman AD, D'Agnolo A, Williams CM. Whole-body ¹⁸F-FDG PET identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1457–1463. Medline, Google Scholar
4 Schirrmeister H, Buck AK, Bergmann L, Reske SN, Bommer M. Positron emission tomography (PET) for staging of solitary plasmacytoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2003;18:841–845. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
5 Angtuaco EJ, Fassas AB, Walker R, Sethi R, Barlogie B. Multiple myeloma: clinical review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology 2004;231:11–23. Link, Google Scholar
6 Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck AK, et al. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using ¹⁸F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:361–366. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7 Orchard K, Barrington S, Buscombe J, Hilson A, Prentice HG, Metha A. Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of occult disease in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2002;117:133–135. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
8 Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, Hawkins R. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1199–1204. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9 Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Smith TL, et al. Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:251–256. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
10 Lecouvet FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, et al. Skeletal survey in advanced multiple myeloma: radiographic versus MR imaging survey. Br J Haematol 1999;106:35–39. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11 International Myeloma Working Group. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol 2003;121:749–757. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
12 Liebisch P, Viardot A, Bassermann N, et al. Value of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) for molecular diagnostics in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2003;122:193–201. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 Jego G, Bataille R, Pellat-Deceunynck C. Interleukin-6 is a growth factor for nonmalignant human plasmablasts. Blood 2001;97:1817–1822. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
14 Comar D, Catron JC, Maziere M, Marazano C. Labelling and metabolism of methionine-methyl-11C. Eur J Nucl Med 1976;1:11–14. Medline, Google Scholar
15 Schmid DT, John H, Zweifel R, et al. Fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: initial experience. Radiology 2005;235:623–628. Link, Google Scholar
16 Kwee SA, Coel MN, Lim J, Ko JP. Prostate cancer localization with 18fluorine fluorocholine positron emission tomography. J Urol 2005;173:252–255. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
17 Blade J, Samson D, Reece D, et al. Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Br J Haematol 1998;102:1115–1123. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
18 Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986;21:720–733. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
19 Hammerton K, Cooper DA, Duckett M, Penny R. Biosynthesis of immunoglobulin in human immunoproliferative diseases. I. Kinetics of synthesis and secretion of immunoglobulin and protein by bone marrow cells in myeloma. J Immunol 1978;121:409–417. Google Scholar
20 Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Durr HR, Reiser M. Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2005;55:56–63. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
21 Baur A, Stabler A, Nagel D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a supplement for the clinical staging system of Durie and Salmon? Cancer 2002;95:1334–1345. Google Scholar
22 Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Gehbauer G, et al. Multidetector CT of the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1429–1436. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
23 Rahmouni A, Montazel JL, Divine M, et al. Bone marrow with diffuse tumor infiltration in patients with lymphoproliferative diseases: dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;229:710–717. Link, Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2007

Vol. 242, No. 2

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download