000128559 001__ 128559
000128559 005__ 20240228135107.0
000128559 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.008
000128559 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:24793843
000128559 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0720-048X
000128559 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1872-7727
000128559 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:15784776
000128559 037__ $$aDKFZ-2017-04575
000128559 041__ $$aeng
000128559 082__ $$a610
000128559 1001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aWolf, Maya B$$b0$$eLast author
000128559 245__ $$aSensitivity of whole-body CT and MRI versus projection radiography in the detection of osteolyses in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease.
000128559 260__ $$aAmsterdam [u.a.]$$bElsevier Science$$c2014
000128559 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000128559 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000128559 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1522073524_5537
000128559 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000128559 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000128559 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000128559 520__ $$aTo compare sensitivity of whole-body Computed Tomography (wb-CT) and whole-body Magnetic Resonance Imaging (wb-MRI) with Projection Radiography (PR) regarding each method's ability to detect osteolyses in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease.The bone status of 171 patients was evaluated. All patients presented with multiple myeloma (MM) of all stages, monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS) or solitary plasmacytoma. Two groups were formed. Group A consisted of 52 patients (26 females, 26 males) with an average age of 62 years (range, 45-89 years) who received, both, PR and wb-CT as part of their diagnostic work-up. Group B comprised 119 patients (58 females, 61 males) averaging 57 years of age (range, 20-80 years) who received, both, PR and wb-MRI. Two experienced radiologists were blinded regarding the disease status and assessed the number and location of osteolyses in consensus. A distinction was made between axial and extra-axial lesions.In group A, wb-CT revealed osteolyses in 12 patients (23%) that were not detected in PR. CT was superior in detecting lesions in patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis. Compared with PR, wb-CT was significantly more sensitive in detecting osteolyses than PR (p<0.001). This was particularly true for axial lesions. Additionally, CT revealed clinically relevant incidental findings in 33 patients (63%). In group B, wb-MRI revealed lesions in 19 patients (16%) that were not detected in PR. All lesions detected by PR were also detected by wb-MRI and wb-CT. Wb-MRI and wb-CT are each superior to PR in detecting axial lesions.Wb-CT can detect 23% more focal lesions than PR, especially in the axial skeleton. Therefore, this imaging method should be preferred over PR in the diagnostic work-up and staging of patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease.
000128559 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315$$a315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)$$cPOF3-315$$fPOF III$$x0
000128559 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000128559 7001_ $$aMurray, Fritz$$b1
000128559 7001_ $$aKilk, Kerstin$$b2
000128559 7001_ $$aHillengass, Jens$$b3
000128559 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)3e76653311420a51a5faeb80363bd73e$$aDelorme, Stefan$$b4$$udkfz
000128559 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aHeiss, Christiane$$b5
000128559 7001_ $$aNeben, Kai$$b6
000128559 7001_ $$aGoldschmidt, Hartmut$$b7
000128559 7001_ $$aKauczor, Hans-Ulrich$$b8
000128559 7001_ $$aWeber, Marc-André$$b9
000128559 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2005350-2$$a10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.008$$gVol. 83, no. 7, p. 1222 - 1230$$n7$$p1222 - 1230$$tEuropean journal of radiology$$v83$$x0720-048X$$y2014
000128559 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:128559$$pVDB
000128559 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-HGF)0$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b0$$kDKFZ
000128559 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)3e76653311420a51a5faeb80363bd73e$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b4$$kDKFZ
000128559 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-HGF)0$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b5$$kDKFZ
000128559 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
000128559 9141_ $$y2014
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bEUR J RADIOL : 2015
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine
000128559 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000128559 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331$$kE010$$lRadiologie$$x0
000128559 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331$$kC060$$lBiostatistik$$x1
000128559 980__ $$ajournal
000128559 980__ $$aVDB
000128559 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)E010-20160331
000128559 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
000128559 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED