Imaging Recommendations for Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hematological Malignancies

Abstract

The NIC defines hematological cancers as those that begin in blood forming tissues such as bone marrow or cells of the immune system and these broadly include three groups: leukemias, lymphomas, and myelomas. The role of imaging is also fundamentally different between the three main groups of hematological malignancies. While imaging is the main tool for staging as well as treatment response assessment in lymphoma, it represents one of several key criteria for the diagnosis and follow-up of myeloma; whereas in leukemia, imaging has a role to play in the detection and management of treatment-related complications which is a crucial part of post-transplant treatment.

Keywords

hematology - medical oncology - radiology

Disclaimer

This article is not an original paper and is only a compilation of imaging guidelines from various sources, which have been cited appropriately.

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. Mai 2023

• References

• 1 Definition of hematologic cancer - NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms - National Cancer Institute. Accessed December 21, 2022, at: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/hematologic-cancer
• 2 Younes A, Hilden P, Coiffier B. et al. International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017). Ann Oncol 2017; 28 (07) 1436-1447
• 3 Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF. et al; Alliance, Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Consortium, Italian Lymphoma Foundation, European Organisation for Research, Treatment of Cancer/Dutch Hemato-Oncology Group, Grupo Español de Médula Ósea, German High-Grade Lymphoma Study Group, German Hodgkin's Study Group, Japanese Lymphorra Study Group, Lymphoma Study Association, NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Nordic Lymphoma Study Group, Southwest Oncology Group, United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (27) 3059-3068
• 4 Chantry A, Kazmi M, Barrington S. et al; British Society for Haematology Guidelines. Guidelines for the use of imaging in the management of patients with myeloma. Br J Haematol 2017; 178 (03) 380-393
• 5 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 (05) 1325-1335
• 6 Bhutani M, Vora A, Kumar L, Kochupillai V. Lympho-hemopoietic malignancies in India. Med Oncol 2002; 19 (03) 141-150
• 7 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 (27) 3048-3058
• 8 Bradley AJ, Carrington BM, Lawrance JAL, Ryder WDJ, Radford JA. Assessment and significance of mediastinal bulk in Hodgkin's disease: comparison between computed tomography and chest radiography. Citeseer. 17:2493–2498. Accessed December 21, 2022, at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.982.5563&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• 9 Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB. et al. Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin's disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7 (11) 1630-1636
• 10 Federico M, Bellei M, Marcheselli L. et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2: a new prognostic index for follicular lymphoma developed by the international follicular lymphoma prognostic factor project. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27 (27) 4555-4562
• 11 Pfreundschuh M, Ho A, Cavallin-Stahl E. oncology MW-T lancet, 2008 undefined. Prognostic significance of maximum tumour (bulk) diameter in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma treated with CHOP-like. Elsevier. Accessed December 21, 2022, at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470204508700780
• 12 Pelosi E, Penna D, Douroukas A. et al. MB-TQJ, 2010 undefined. Bone marrow disease detection with FDG-PET/CT and bone marrow biopsy during the staging of malignant lymphoma: results from a large multicentre study. europepmc.org. Accessed December 21, 2022, at: https://europepmc.org/article/med/21150862
• 13 Paone G, Itti E, Haioun C. et al. Bone marrow involvement in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: correlation between FDG-PET uptake and type of cellular infiltrate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009; 36 (05) 745-750
• 14 Cerci JJ, Pracchia LF, Linardi CCG. et al. 18F-FDG PET after 2 cycles of ABVD predicts event-free survival in early and advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2010; 51 (09) 1337-1343
• 15 Engert A, Haverkamp H, Kobe C. et al; German Hodgkin Study Group, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Medikamentöse Tumortherapie. Reduced-intensity chemotherapy and PET-guided radiotherapy in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HD15 trial): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2012; 379 (9828): 1791-1799
• 16 Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, Hain SF, O'Doherty MJ. 18-FDG-PET for the assessment of residual masses on CT following treatment of lymphomas. Ann Oncol 2000; 11 (Suppl 1): 147-150
• 17 Conte MJ, Bowen DA, Wiseman GA. et al. Use of positron emission tomography-computed tomography in the management of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2014; 55 (09) 2079-2084
• 18 Mauro FR, Chauvie S, Paoloni F. et al. Diagnostic and prognostic role of PET/CT in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and progressive disease. Leukemia 2015; 29 (06) 1360-1365
• 19 Guha A, Vijan A, Agarwal U. et al. Imaging for plasma cell dyscrasias: what, when, and how?. Front Oncol 2022; 12: 825394
• 20 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 (06) e302-e312
• 21 Ormond Filho AG, Carneiro BC, Pastore D. et al. Whole-body imaging of multiple myeloma: diagnostic criteria. Radiographics 2019; 39 (04) 1077-1097
• 22 Lecouvet FE. Whole-body MR imaging: musculoskeletal applications. Radiology 2016; 279 (02) 345-365
• 23 Rajkumar S, Dimopoulos M, Palumbo A. oncology JB-T lancet, 2014 undefined. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Elsevier. Accessed December 21, 2022, at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470204514704425
• 24 Koutoulidis V, Fontara S, Terpos E. et al. Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging of the bone marrow: an adjunct tool for the diagnosis of a diffuse MR imaging pattern in patients with multiple myeloma. Radiology 2017; 282 (02) 484-493
• 25 Bergstrom DJ, Kotb R, Louzada ML, Sutherland HJ, Tavoularis S, Venner CP. Myeloma Canada Research Network Consensus Guideline Consortium. Consensus guidelines on the diagnosis of multiple myeloma and related disorders: recommendations of the myeloma Canada research network consensus guideline consortium. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2020; 20 (07) e352-e367
• 26 Nanni C. PET/CT with standard non-FDG tracers in multiple myeloma. Mol Imaging Mult Myeloma 2019; 93–97
• 27 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 (01) 5-13
• 28 Van Heertum RL, Scarimbolo R, Wolodzko JG. et al. Lugano 2014 criteria for assessing FDG-PET/CT in lymphoma: an operational approach for clinical trials. Drug Des Devel Ther 2017; 11: 1719-1728