Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 19, 2025
Automated Quantification of Hematopoietic Cell – Stromal Cell Interactions in Histological Images of Undecalcified Bone
Published on: April 8, 2015
Differentiation of Diffuse Infiltration Pattern in Multiple Myeloma From Hyperplastic Hematopoietic Bone Marrow:
Mengtian Sun1, Jingliang Cheng1, Cuiping Ren1
1Department of Magnetic Resonance, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, 1st, Jianshe Dong Road, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, 450052, China.
Background:
The visual assessment used for diffuse infiltration of multiple myeloma (MM) is inadequate. It can be difficult to differentiate MM from hyperplastic hematopoietic bone marrow (HHBM) because the MRI signal characteristics overlap.
Purpose:
To analyze the bone marrow diffuse signal changes on whole-body MRI caused by MM and HHBM.
Study Type:
Retrospective.
Subjects:
Thirty Four patients with MM (21 men and 13 women), 22 patients with HHBM (9 men and 13 women), and 15 healthy controls (9 men and 6 women).
Field Strength/Sequence:
A 3.0 T MRI; diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS), modified Dixon T1 fast field echo, and T2 STIR.
Assessment:
Three radiologists analyzed the whole-body MRI alone and in combination with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and fat fraction (FF) with qualitative and quantitative analysis. Normalized T1 and T2 signal intensities (nT1 and nT2) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were obtained.
Statistical Tests:
Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests.
Results:
The MM group had significantly higher ADC and significantly lower FF than HHBM and control groups. There was no significant difference in nT1, nT2 or SNR between MM and HHBM (P = 0.932, P = 0.097, and P = 0.110, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis using ADC and FF cut-off values of 0.47 × 10-3 mm2 /sec and 20.63%, respectively. The AUC was 0.866 for ADC and 0.886 for FF. The quantitative analysis yielded better specificity (observer 1: 81.8% vs. 27.3%; observer 2: 68.2% vs. 22.7%; and observer 3: 72.7% vs. 18.2%) and a higher diagnostic accuracy (observer 1: 82.1% vs. 51.8%; observer 2: 80.4% vs. 50.0%; observer 3: 76.8% vs. 44.6%) than the qualitative analysis.
Data Conclusion:
Whole-body MRI combined with DWIBS and mDIXON could be used to differentiate between MM and HHBM. Combining the quantitative ADC and FF with the whole-body MRI improved the specificity and accuracy in differentiating these conditions.
Evidence Level:
3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
