• 1
    Anagnostopoulos A, Hamilos G, Zorzou MP, Grigoraki V, Anagnostou D, Dimopoulos MA. Discordant response or progression in patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide-based regimens. Leukemia Lymphoma. 2004; 45: 113116.
  • 2
    Angtuaco EJC, Fassas ABT, Walker R, Sethi R, Barlogie B. Multiple myeloma: clinical review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology. 2004; 231: 1123.
  • 3
    Kyle R. Why better prognostic factors for multiple myeloma are needed. Blood. 1994; 83: 17131716.
  • 4
    Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Desikan KR, et al. Total therapy with tandem transplants for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 1999; 93: 5565.
  • 5
    Durie BGM, Salmon SE. A clinical staging for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment and survival. Cancer. 1975; 36: 842854.
  • 6
    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: 13341345.
  • 7
    Lecouvet F, Vande Berg B, Malghem J, Maldague B. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma. Semin Musculoskeletal Radiol. 2001; 5: 4355.
  • 8
    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; 5: 379398.
  • 9
    Strauss LG. Positron emission tomography: current role for diagnosis and therapy monitoring in oncology. Oncologist. 1997; 2: 381388.
  • 10
    Rahmouni A, Divine M, Mathieu D, et al. MR appearance of multiple myeloma of the spine before and after treatment. AJR. 1193; 160: 10531057.
  • 11
    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: 5663.
  • 12
    Libshitz HI, Malthouse SR, Cunningham D, MacVicar DA, Husband J. Multiple myeloma: appearance at MR imaging. Radiology. 1992; 182: 833837.
  • 13
    Horger M, Claussen CD, Bross-Bach U, et al. Whole-body low-dose multidetector row-CT in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: an alternative to conventional radiography. Eur J Radiol. 2005; 54: 289297.
  • 14
    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. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant. Br J Haematol. 1998; 102: 11151123.
  • 15
    Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, Hawkins R. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR. 2005; 184: 11991204.
  • 16
    Durie BGM. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42: 15391543.
  • 17
    Breyer RJ3rd, Mulligan ME, Smith ES, Line BR, Badros AZ. Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol. 2006; 35: 632640.
  • 18
    Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results. Eur J Nuclear Med Mol Imaging. 2006; 33: 525531.
  • 19
    Wasser K, Moehler T, Nosas-Garcia S, et al. Comparison of MRI and histopathology of bone marrow in patients with multiple myeloma [in German]. Rofo. 2005; 177: 11161122.