| [1] |
Ferraro R, Agarwal A, Martin-Macintosh EL, et al.
MR imaging and PET/CT in diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma[J]. RadiographicsRadiographics, 2015, 35(2): 438-454.
doi: 10.1148/rg.352140112 |
| [2] |
Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al.
International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma[J]. Lancet OncolLancet Oncol, 2014, 15(12): e538-e548.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5 |
| [3] |
李现军, 李凤岐, 李桂芝, 等.
多发性骨髓瘤患者18F-FDG PET/CT显像分析[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2018, 38(12): 790-792.
doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-2848.2018.12.004 Li XJ, Li FQ, Li GZ, et al. Imaging analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with multiple myeloma[J]. Chin J Nucl Med Mol ImagingChin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2018, 38(12): 790-792. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-2848.2018.12.004 |
| [4] |
Mesguich C, Fardanesh R, Tanenbaum L, et al.
State of the art imaging of multiple myeloma: comparative review of FDG PET/CT imaging in various clinical settings[J]. Eur J RadiolEur J Radiol, 2014, 83(12): 2203-2223.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.09.012 |
| [5] |
Mosci C, Pericole FV, Oliveira GB, et al.
99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/CT have similar performance but different imaging patterns in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma[J]. Nucl Med CommunNucl Med Commun, 2020, 41(10): 1081-1088.
doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001259 |
| [6] |
Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, et al.
A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma[J]. HaematologicaHaematologica, 2007, 92(1): 50-55.
doi: 10.3324/haematol.10554 |
| [7] |
Moreau P, Attal M, Caillot D, et al.
Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography at diagnosis and before maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial: results of the IMAJEM study[J]. J Clin OncolJ Clin Oncol, 2017, 35(25): 2911-2918.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.2975 |
| [8] |
Waheed S, Mitchell A, Usmani S, et al.
Standard and novel imaging methods for multiple myeloma: correlates with prognostic laboratory variables including gene expression profiling data[J]. HaematologicaHaematologica, 2013, 98(1): 71-78.
doi: 10.3324/haematol.2012.066555 |
| [9] |
龚盈盈, 闫晓爽, 王叶敏, 等.
多发性骨髓瘤患者的临床特征及预后因素分析[J]. 中国实验血液学杂志中国实验血液学杂志, 2021, 29(3): 772-780.
doi: 10.19746/j.cnki.issn1009-2137.2021.03.019 Gong YY, Yan XS, Wang YM, et al. Clinical features and prognostic factors of patients with multiple myeloma[J]. J Exp HematolJ Exp Hematol, 2021, 29(3): 772-780. doi: 10.19746/j.cnki.issn1009-2137.2021.03.019 |
| [10] |
Sachpekidis C, Mai EK, Goldschmidt H, et al.
18F-FDG dynamic PET/CT in patients with multiple myeloma: patterns of tracer uptake and correlation with bone marrow plasma cell infiltration rate[J]. Clin Nucl MedClin Nucl Med, 2015, 40(6): e300-e307.
doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000000773 |
| [11] |
Lecouvet FE, Boyadzhiev D, Collette L, et al.
MRI versus 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detecting bone marrow involvement in multiple myeloma: diagnostic performance and clinical relevance[J]. Eur RadiolEur Radiol, 2020, 30(4): 1927-1937.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06469-1 |
| [12] |
Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, et al.
Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation[J]. BloodBlood, 2011, 118(23): 5989-5995.
doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-361386 |
| [13] |
Patriarca F, Carobolante F, Zamagni E, et al.
The role of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose integrated with computed tomography in the evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation[J]. Biol Blood Marrow TransplantBiol Blood Marrow Transplant, 2015, 21(6): 1068-1073.
doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.03.001 |
| [14] |
吴增杰, 边甜甜, 王艳丽, 等.
18F-FDG PET/CT显像SUVmax>2.5的病灶数及肿瘤代谢体积对多发性骨髓瘤预后评估的价值[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2016, 36(1): 44-47.
doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-2848.2016.01.011 Wu ZJ, Bian TT, Wang YL, et al. Prognostic value of the number of lesions with SUVmax>2.5 and metabolic tumor volume assessed by 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in patients with multiple myeloma[J]. Chin J Nucl Med Mol ImagingChin J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2016, 36(1): 44-47. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-2848.2016.01.011 |
| [15] |
McDonald JE, Kessler MM, Gardner MW, et al.
Assessment of total lesion glycolysis by 18F FDG PET/CT significantly improves prognostic value of GEP and ISS in myeloma[J]. Clin Cancer ResClin Cancer Res, 2017, 23(8): 1981-1987.
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0235 |
| [16] |
Lapa C, Lückerath K, Malzahn U, et al. 18FDG-PET/CT for prognostic stratification of patients with multiple myeloma relapse after stem cell transplantation[J/OL]. Oncotarget, 2014, 5(17): 7381−7391[2021-09-17]. https://www.oncotarget.com/article/2290/text. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.2290. |
| [17] |
Spinnato P, Bazzocchi A, Brioli A, et al.
Contrast enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG PET-CT in the assessment of multiple myeloma: a comparison of results in different phases of the disease[J]. Eur J RadiolEur J Radiol, 2012, 81(12): 4013-4018.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.06.028 |
| [18] |
Caldarella C, Isgrò MA, Treglia I, et al.
Is fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography useful in monitoring the response to treatment in patients with multiple myeloma?[J]. Int J HematolInt J Hematol, 2012, 96(6): 685-691.
doi: 10.1007/s12185-012-1215-6 |
| [19] |
Mina R, Oliva S, Boccadoro M. Minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: state of the art and future perspectives[J/OL]. J Clin Med, 2020, 9(7): 2142[2021-09-17]. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/7/2142. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9072142. |
| [20] |
Munshi NC, Avet-Loiseau H, Rawstron AC, et al.
Association of minimal residual disease with superior survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis[J]. JAMA OncolJAMA Oncol, 2017, 3(1): 28-35.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3160 |
| [21] |
Langerhorst P, Noori S, Zajec M, et al.
Multiple myeloma minimal residual disease detection: targeted mass spectrometry in blood vs. next-generation sequencing in bone marrow[J]. Clin ChemClin Chem, 2021, 67(12): 1689-1698.
doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvab187 |
| [22] |
Han WM, Jin YY, Xu M, et al.
Prognostic value of circulating clonal plasma cells in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma[J]. HematologyHematology, 2021, 26(1): 510-517.
doi: 10.1080/16078454.2021.1948208 |
| [23] |
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[J]. Lancet OncolLancet Oncol, 2017, 18(4): e206-e217.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30189-4 |
| [24] |
Alonso R, Cedena MT, Gómez-Grande A, et al.
Imaging and bone marrow assessments improve minimal residual disease prediction in multiple myeloma[J]. Am J HematolAm J Hematol, 2019, 94(8): 853-861.
doi: 10.1002/ajh.25507 |
| [25] |
Bertamini L, D'Agostino M, Gay F.
MRD assessment in multiple myeloma: progress and challenges[J]. Curr Hematol Malig RepCurr Hematol Malig Rep, 2021, 16(2): 162-171.
doi: 10.1007/s11899-021-00633-5 |
| [26] |
Rajkumar SV, Landgren O, Mateos MV.
Smoldering multiple myeloma[J]. BloodBlood, 2015, 125(20): 3069-3075.
doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-09-568899 |
| [27] |
靳凤艳, 刘雪莲, 李薇.
冒烟型多发性骨髓瘤的预后分层及治疗[J]. 中华内科杂志中华内科杂志, 2017, 56(7): 519-522.
doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1426.2017.07.010 Jin FY, Liu XL, Li W. The risk stratification and treatment of smoldering multiple myeloma[J]. Chin J Intern MedChin J Intern Med, 2017, 56(7): 519-522. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1426.2017.07.010 |
| [28] |
Zamagni E, Nanni C, Gay F, et al.
18F-FDG PET/CT focal, but not osteolytic, lesions predict the progression of smoldering myeloma to active disease[J]. LeukemiaLeukemia, 2016, 30(2): 417-422.
doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.291 |
| [29] |
Ripani D, Caldarella C, Za T, et al.
Progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma predicted by texture analysis-derived parameters in patients without focal disease at 18F-FDG PET/CT[J]. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma LeukClin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk, 2021, 21(8): 536-544.
doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2021.03.014 |
| [30] |
Albano D, Bosio G, Treglia G, et al.
18F-FDG PET/CT in solitary plasmacytoma: metabolic behavior and progression to multiple myeloma[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol ImagingEur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2018, 45(1): 77-84.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3810-5 |
| [31] |
Westerland O, Amlani A, Kelly-Morland C, et al.
Comparison of the diagnostic performance and impact on management of 18F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI in multiple myeloma[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol ImagingEur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2021, 48(8): 2558-2565.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-05182-2 |
| [32] |
Dankerl A, Liebisch P, Glatting G, et al.
Multiple myeloma: molecular imaging with 11C-methionine PET/CT —initial experience[J]. RadiologyRadiology, 2007, 242(2): 498-508.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2422051980 |
| [33] |
Lapa C, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Lückerath K, et al. 11C-methionine-PET in multiple myeloma: a combined study from two different institutions[J/OL]. Theranostics, 2017, 7(11): 2956−2964[2021-09-17]. https://www.thno.org/v07p2956.htm. DOI: 10.7150/thno.20491. |
| [34] |
Lückerath K, Lapa C, Albert C, et al. 11C-methionine-PET: a novel and sensitive tool for monitoring of early response to treatment in multiple myeloma[J/OL]. Oncotarget, 2015, 6(10): 8418−8429[2021-09-17]. https://www.oncotarget.com/article/3053/text. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.3053. |
| [35] |
Domanska UM, Kruizinga RC, Nagengast WB, et al.
A review on CXCR4/CXCL12 axis in oncology: no place to hide[J]. Eur J CancerEur J Cancer, 2013, 49(1): 219-230.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.05.005 |
| [36] |
Lapa C, Schreder M, Schirbel A, et al. [68Ga]pentixafor-PET/CT for imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in multiple myeloma —comparison to [ 18F]FDG and laboratory values[J/OL]. Theranostics, 2017, 7(1): 205−212[2021-09-17]. https://www.thno.org/v07p0205.htm. DOI: 10.7150/thno.16576. |
| [37] |
Pan QQ, Cao XX, Luo YP, et al.
Chemokine receptor-4 targeted PET/CT with 68Ga-pentixafor in assessment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: comparison to 18F-FDG PET/CT[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol ImagingEur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2020, 47(3): 537-546.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04605-z |
| [38] |
Nanni C, Zamagni E, Cavo M, et al. 11C-choline vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing bone involvement in patients with multiple myeloma[J/OL]. World J Surg Oncol, 2007, 5: 68[2021-09-17]. https://wjso.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7819-5-68. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-5-68. |
| [39] |
Cassou-Mounat T, Balogova S, Nataf V, et al.
18F-fluorocholine versus 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for PET/CT imaging in patients with suspected relapsing or progressive multiple myeloma: a pilot study[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol ImagingEur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2016, 43(11): 1995-2004.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3392-7 |
| [40] |
Mesguich C, Hulin C, Lascaux A, et al. Choline PET/CT in multiple myeloma[J/OL]. Cancers (Basel), 2020, 12(6): 1394[2021-09-17]. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/12/6/1394. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12061394. |
| [41] |
Fontana F, Ge X, Su XM, et al.
Evaluating acetate metabolism for imaging and targeting in multiple myeloma[J]. Clin Cancer ResClin Cancer Res, 2017, 23(2): 416-429.
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2134 |
| [42] |
Ho CL, Chen SR, Leung YL, et al.
11C-acetate PET/CT for metabolic characterization of multiple myeloma: a comparative study with 18F-FDG PET/CT[J]. J Nucl MedJ Nucl Med, 2014, 55(5): 749-752.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.113.131169 |