• 1
    Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL, et al. International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple Myeloma. Leukemia. 2009; 23: 1545-1556.
  • 2
    Durie BG, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer. 1975; 36: 842-854.
  • 3
    Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TLY, et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009; 114: 2068-2076.
  • 4
    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. Haematologica. 2007; 92: 50-55.
  • 5
    Hoh CK, Schiepers C, Seltzer MA et al. PET in oncology: will it replace the other modalities? Semin.Nucl.Med. 1997; 27: 94-106.
  • 6
    Ido T, Wan CN, Fowler JS. fluorination with molecular fluorine. a convenient synthesis of 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose. 1977; 43: 2341-2342.
  • 7
    Mijnhout GS, Hooft L, van Tulder MW, Deville WL, Teule GJ, Hoekstra OS. How to perform a comprehensive search for FDG-PET literature. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000; 27: 91-97.
  • 8
    Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reitsma J, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004; 8: iii, 1-234.
  • 9
    Adam Z, Bolcak K, Stanicek J, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in multiple myeloma, solitary plasmocytoma and monoclonal gammapathy of unknown significance. Neoplasma. 2007; 54: 536-540.
  • 10
    Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, Hawkins R. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184: 1199-1204.
  • 11
    Breyer IIIRJ, Mulligan ME, Smith SE, Line BR, Badros AZ. Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skelet Radiol. 2006; 35: 632-640.
  • 12
    Castellani M, Carletto M, Baldini L, et al. The prognostic value of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose bone marrow uptake in patients with recent diagnosis of multiple myeloma: a comparative study with Tc-99m sestamibi. Clin Nucl Med. 2010; 35: 1-5.
  • 13
    Durie BGM, Waxman AD, D'Agnolo A, Williams CM. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med. 2002; 43: 1457-1463.
  • 14
    Fonti R, Salvatore B, Quarantelli M, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-MIBI, and MRI in evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49: 195-200.
  • 15
    Hung GU, Tsai CC, Tsai SC, Lin WY. Comparison of Tc-99m sestamibi and F-18 FDG-PET in the assessment of multiple myeloma. Anticancer Res. 2005; 25: 4737-4741.
  • 16
    Hur J, Yoon CS, Ryu YH, Yun MJ, Suh JS. Efficacy of multidetector row computed tomography of the spine in patients with multiple myeloma: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. J ComputAssisted Tomogr. 2007; 31: 342-347.
  • 17
    Hur J, Yoon CS, Ryu YH, Yun MJ, Suh JS. Comparative study of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of spinal bone marrow infiltration in untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Acta Radiol. 2008; 49: 427-435.
  • 18
    Jadvar H, Conti PS. Diagnostic utility of FDG PET in multiple myeloma. Skelet Radiol. 2002; 31: 690-694.
  • 19
    Mileshkin L, Blum R, Seymour JF, Patrikeos A, Hicks RJ, Prince HM. A comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET and technetium-99m sestamibi in assessing patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 2004; 72: 32-37.
  • 20
    Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Hoffmann M, Bergner R, Uppenkamp M, Haberkorn U, Strauss LG. Prediction of progression-free survival in patients with multiple myeloma following anthracycline-based chemotherapy based on dynamic FDG-PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2009; 34: 576-584.
  • 21
    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 Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33: 525-531.
  • 22
    Salaun PY, Gastinne T, Frampas E, Bodet-Milin C, Moreau P, Bodere-Kraeber F. FDG-positron-emission tomography for staging and therapeutic assessment in patients with plasmacytoma. Haematologica 2008; 93: 1269-1271.
  • 23
    Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck AK, et al. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002; 29: 361-366.
  • 24
    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.
  • 25
    Shortt CP, Gleeson TG, Breen KA, et al. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192: 980-986.
  • 26
    Kim PJ, Hicks RJ, Wirth A, et al. Impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography before and after definitive radiation therapy in patients with apparently solitary plasmacytoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 74: 740-746.
  • 27
    Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35: 2320-2333.
  • 28
    Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 181-200.