Densitometry as a monitoring method in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma
https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2018-5-106-113
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the problem of the analysis of the degree of osteoporosis based on the results of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in multiple myeloma during treatment. The change in bone mineral density in patients with multiple myeloma treated with standard chemotherapy and high-dose chemotherapy with autotransplantation of hematopoietic stem cells is considered. The X-ray densitometry method can serve as an objective criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of the treatment in patients with multiple myeloma.
About the Authors
E. V. KryukovRussian Federation
Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, doct. of med. sci., Professor, Head
V. N. Troyan
Russian Federation
doct. of med. sci., Professor, Head of the Radiology Department
105229 Moscow, Gospitalnaya pl., 3, Russian Federation
+7-499-263-11-46, +7-916-688-62-17
O. A. Rukavitsyn
Russian Federation
doct. of med. sci., Professor, Head of the hematological center
S. V. Kozyrev
Russian Federation
cand. of med. sci., Head of the X-ray department
I. G. Daragan-Sushchov
Russian Federation
radiologist of the X-ray department
V. P. Pop
Russian Federation
cand. of med. sci., Head of the Department of High-Dose Chemotherapy and Transplantation of Hemopoietic Stem Cells, Hematology Center
S. A. Alekseev
Russian Federation
radiologist of the department of computer and magnetic resonance imaging of the PET Center
E. R. Sapelnikova
Russian Federation
cand. of med. sci., Head of the Department of Endocrinology
References
1. Votyakova O. M. Multiple myeloma: achievements of medical treatment of XX-XXI centuries. VII Russian cancer conference. M.: RONC, 2003: 108–110. (In Russian)
2. Galtseva I.V., Davydova Yu.O., Kapranov S.T., Rodionova S.S. The role and place of flow cytometry in the diagnosis and monitoring of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Oncohematology. 2017; 12 (2): 80–94. (In Russian)
3. Zatsepin S.T., Rodionova S.S., Bozikov N.V., Lesnyak A.T. Differential diagnosis of systemic osteoporosis and multiple myeloma. Orthopedics. 1987; 11: 46–49. (In Russian)
4. Bessmeltsev S.S. The treatment of bone disease in multiple myeloma. J. Hematol. 2016; 12 (1): 5–23. (In Russian)
5. Geltser B.I., Zhilkova N.N., Anufrieva N.D., Kochetkova E.A. Lesions bone in multiple myeloma. Pacific medical journal. 2011; 3: 11–16. (In Russian)
6. Giuliani N., Colla S., Morandi F., Lazzaretti M., Sala R., Bonomini S., Grano M., Colucci S., Svaldi M., Rizzoli V. Myeloma cells block RUNX2/CBFA1 activity in human bone marrow osteoblast progenitorsand inhibit osteoblast formation and differentiation. Blood. 2005; 106 (7): 2472–2254. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2004-12-4986
7. Chow C.W., Rincon M., Davis R.J. Requirement for transcription factor NFAT in interleukin--2 expression. Molecular and cellular biology. 1999; 19 (3): 2300–2307.
8. Morgan G.J., Kaiser M.F. How to use new biology to guide therapy in multiple myeloma. ASH Education Book. 2012; 1: 342–349.
9. Pop V.P., Rukavitsin O.A. Multiple myeloma and related diseases. 3-rd ed. кev. and ext. M.: GOATER Media, 2016. 224. (In Russian)
10. Benitez C.L., Schneider D.L., Barrett-Connor E., Sartoris D.J. Hand ultrasound for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos. Int. 2000; 11 (3): 203–210. DOI: 10.1007/s001980050282.
11. MarkinaY.Y. Comparative aspects of radiological diagnosis of lesions of the skelet on in multiple myeloma: Abstract. dis. ... cand. of med. scie. Tomsk, 2010. 21 p. (In Russian)
12. Augat P., Fan B., Lane N.E., Lang T.F., LeHir P., Lu Y., Uffmann M., Genant H.K. Assessment of bone mineral at appendicular sites in females with fractures of the proximal femur. Bone. 1998; 22: 395–402.
13. Bone ultrasonometry: is it equal or superior to DEXA? Lunar News. 2000; Winter: 3–6.
14. Karelian N. Ah. Karmazanovsky G. G. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the whole body. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery = Khirurgiya. Zhurnal imeni N.I. Pirogova. 2010; 8: 57. (In Russian)
15. Croucher P. Bisphosphonates in the treatment of myeloma bone disease. Eur. J. Haematol. 2003; 70 (4): 271–272.
16. Moiseev S.I., Salogub G.N., Stepanova N.B. Modern principles of diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma: Benefit. SPb.: Medical University Publishing House, 2006. 39 p. (In Russian)
17. Trufanov G. E. X-ray computed tomography: a Guide for physicians; Eds Professor G.E. Trufanov, S.D. Rud. SPb: LLC “Publishing house FOLIANT”, 2008. 1189 p. (In Russian)
18. Palumbo A., Cavallo F., Gay F., Di Raimondo F., Yehuda D.B., Petrucci M. T., Pezzatti S., Caravita T., Cerrato C., Ribakovsky E., Genuardi M., Cafro A., Marcatti M., Catalano L., Offidani M., Carella A. M., Zamagni E., Patriarca F., Musto P., Evangelista A., Ciccone G., Omedé P., Crippa C., Corradini P., Nagler A., Boccadoro M., Cavo M. Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014; 371 (10): 895–905. DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1402888. PMID: 25184862.
Review
For citations:
Kryukov E.V., Troyan V.N., Rukavitsyn O.A., Kozyrev S.V., Daragan-Sushchov I.G., Pop V.P., Alekseev S.A., Sapelnikova E.R. Densitometry as a monitoring method in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. Medical Visualization. 2018;(5):106-113. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2018-5-106-113