Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38597979›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2024

Predicting cytogenetic risk in multiple myeloma using conventional whole-body MRI, spinal dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and spinal diffusion-weighted imaging.

Thomas Van Den Berghe, Bert Verberckmoes, Nicolas Kint, Steven Wallaert, Nicolas De Vos, Chloé Algoet, Maxim Behaeghe, Julie Dutoit, Nadine Van Roy, Philip Vlummens and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas Van Den Berghe *Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Ghent University Hospital, Building -1K12, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium. thovdnbe.vandenberghe@ugent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0038-8055
Bert Verberckmoes *Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Ghent University Hospital, Building -1K12, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Nicolas KintDepartment of Clinical Hematology, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Steven WallaertDepartment of Biostatistics, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Nicolas De VosDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Ghent University Hospital, Building -1K12, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Chloé AlgoetDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Ghent University Hospital, Building -1K12, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Maxim BehaegheDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Ghent University Hospital, Building -1K12, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Julie DutoitDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Ghent University Hospital, Building -1K12, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Nadine Van RoyCenter for Medical Genetics, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Philip VlummensDepartment of Clinical Hematology, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Amélie DendoovenDepartment of Pathology, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Jo Van DorpeDepartment of Pathology, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Fritz OffnerDepartment of Clinical Hematology, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Koenraad VerstraeteDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Ghent University Hospital, Building -1K12, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium.
Ghent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCytogenetic abnormalities are predictors of poor prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM). This paper aims to build and validate a multiparametric conventional and functional whole-body MRI-based prediction model for cytogenetic risk classification in newly diagnosed MM.

methodsPatients with newly diagnosed MM who underwent multiparametric conventional whole-body MRI, spinal dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-)MRI, spinal diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) and had genetic analysis were retrospectively included (2011-2020/Ghent University Hospital/Belgium). Patients were stratified into standard versus intermediate/high cytogenetic risk groups. After segmentation, 303 MRI features were extracted. Univariate and model-based methods were evaluated for feature and model selection. Testing was performed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and precision-recall curves. Models comparing the performance for genetic risk classification of the entire MRI protocol and of all MRI sequences separately were evaluated, including all features. Four final models, including only the top three most predictive features, were evaluated.

resultsThirty-one patients were enrolled (mean age 66 ± 7 years, 15 men, 13 intermediate-/high-risk genetics). None of the univariate models and none of the models with all features included achieved good performance. The best performing model with only the three most predictive features and including all MRI sequences reached a ROC-area-under-the-curve of 0.80 and precision-recall-area-under-the-curve of 0.79. The highest statistical performance was reached when all three MRI sequences were combined (conventional whole-body MRI + DCE-MRI + DWI). Conventional MRI always outperformed the other sequences. DCE-MRI always outperformed DWI, except for specificity.

conclusionsA multiparametric MRI-based model has a better performance in the noninvasive prediction of high-risk cytogenetics in newly diagnosed MM than conventional MRI alone. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: An elaborate multiparametric MRI-based model performs better than conventional MRI alone for the noninvasive prediction of high-risk cytogenetics in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; this opens opportunities to assess genetic heterogeneity thus overcoming sampling bias. KEY POINTS: • Standard genetic techniques in multiple myeloma patients suffer from sampling bias due to tumoral heterogeneity. • Multiparametric MRI noninvasively predicts genetic risk in multiple myeloma. • Combined conventional anatomical MRI, DCE-MRI, and DWI had the highest statistical performance to predict genetic risk. • Conventional MRI alone always outperformed DCE-MRI and DWI separately to predict genetic risk. DCE-MRI alone always outperformed DWI separately, except for the parameter specificity to predict genetic risk. • This multiparametric MRI-based genetic risk prediction model opens opportunities to noninvasively assess genetic heterogeneity thereby overcoming sampling bias in predicting genetic risk in multiple myeloma.

Indexed as

Diffusion magnetic resonance imagingGeneticsMagnetic resonance imagingMultiparametric magnetic resonance imagingMultiple myeloma

Identifiers

PMID38597979
PMCPMC11006637
OpenAlexW4394686301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.