000128061 001__ 128061
000128061 005__ 20240228145531.0
000128061 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1038/bcj.2017.78
000128061 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:28841211
000128061 0247_ $$2pmc$$apmc:PMC5596388
000128061 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:24302535
000128061 037__ $$aDKFZ-2017-04083
000128061 041__ $$aeng
000128061 082__ $$a610
000128061 1001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)7ccc574e713526d2a22d7acb9b2248c5$$aHillengass, Jens$$b0$$eFirst author
000128061 245__ $$aWhole-body computed tomography versus conventional skeletal survey in patients with multiple myeloma: a study of the International Myeloma Working Group.
000128061 260__ $$aLondon [u.a.]$$bNature Publishing Group$$c2017
000128061 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000128061 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000128061 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1510662180_10704
000128061 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000128061 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000128061 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000128061 520__ $$aFor decades, conventional skeletal survey (CSS) has been the standard imaging technique for multiple myeloma (MM). However, recently whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) has been implemented into the diagnostic criteria of MM. This analysis compares sensitivity and prognostic significance of WBCT and CSS in patients with smoldering MM (SMM) and MM. Fifty-four of 212 patients (25.5%) had a negative CSS and a positive WBCT for osteolytic lesions (P<0.0001). Of 66 patients with SMM based on CSS, 12 (22.2%) had osteolytic lesions on WBCT. In comparison, WBCT failed to detect some bone destructions in the appendicular skeleton possibly due to limitations of the field of view. Presence of lytic bone lesions in WBCT was of borderline prognostic significance (P=0.051) for SMM patients, with a median time to progression of 38 versus 82 months for those without bone destructions. In conclusion, WBCT identifies significantly more sites of bone destruction than CSS. More than 20% of patients with SMM according to CSS have in fact active MM detectable with WBCT. On the basis of this and other studies, WBCT (either computed tomography (CT) alone or as part of a positron emission tomography-CT protocol) should be considered the current standard for the detection of osteolytic lesions in MM.
000128061 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315$$a315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)$$cPOF3-315$$fPOF III$$x0
000128061 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000128061 7001_ $$aMoulopoulos, L. A.$$b1
000128061 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)3e76653311420a51a5faeb80363bd73e$$aDelorme, S.$$b2
000128061 7001_ $$aKoutoulidis, V.$$b3
000128061 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)9dce98b15cdeea0377ee6c204ee5373e$$aMosebach, J.$$b4
000128061 7001_ $$00000-0003-1277-310X$$aHielscher, T.$$b5
000128061 7001_ $$aDrake, M.$$b6
000128061 7001_ $$aRajkumar, S. V.$$b7
000128061 7001_ $$aOestergaard, B.$$b8
000128061 7001_ $$aAbildgaard, N.$$b9
000128061 7001_ $$aHinge, M.$$b10
000128061 7001_ $$aPlesner, T.$$b11
000128061 7001_ $$aSuehara, Y.$$b12
000128061 7001_ $$aMatsue, K.$$b13
000128061 7001_ $$aWithofs, N.$$b14
000128061 7001_ $$aCaers, J.$$b15
000128061 7001_ $$aWaage, A.$$b16
000128061 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)a1aa959d47e3e026abe157a8adf24b96$$aGoldschmidt, H.$$b17$$udkfz
000128061 7001_ $$aDimopoulos, M. A.$$b18
000128061 7001_ $$aLentzsch, S.$$b19
000128061 7001_ $$aDurie, B.$$b20
000128061 7001_ $$aTerpos, E.$$b21
000128061 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2600560-8$$a10.1038/bcj.2017.78$$gVol. 7, no. 8, p. e599 -$$n8$$pe599 -$$tBlood cancer journal$$v7$$x2044-5385$$y2017
000128061 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:128061$$pVDB
000128061 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)7ccc574e713526d2a22d7acb9b2248c5$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b0$$kDKFZ
000128061 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)3e76653311420a51a5faeb80363bd73e$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b2$$kDKFZ
000128061 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)9dce98b15cdeea0377ee6c204ee5373e$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b4$$kDKFZ
000128061 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$60000-0003-1277-310X$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b5$$kDKFZ
000128061 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)a1aa959d47e3e026abe157a8adf24b96$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b17$$kDKFZ
000128061 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vImaging and radiooncology$$x0
000128061 9141_ $$y2017
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bBLOOD CANCER J : 2015
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0310$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bNCBI Molecular Biology Database
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0501$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ Seal
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0500$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ
000128061 915__ $$0LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV$$2V:(DE-HGF)$$aCreative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)$$bDOAJ
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews
000128061 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000128061 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331$$kE010$$lRadiologie$$x0
000128061 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331$$kC060$$lBiostatistik$$x1
000128061 980__ $$ajournal
000128061 980__ $$aVDB
000128061 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)E010-20160331
000128061 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
000128061 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED