title: Radiography and bone scintigraphy in bone marrow transplant multiple myeloma patients.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare conventional radiography and bone scintigraphy in relation to clinical outcome in bone marrow transplant multiple myeloma patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 70 radiographies and 70 bone scintigraphies were compared in 35 patients.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The skull, the extremities, the iliac and public bones were better assessed with radiography. For new vertebral lesions and for lesions in the ribs and sternum, bone scintigraphy proved superior. For the sacrum, the methods were equal. When bone scintigraphy was used as a complement to radiography, 4% more pathological sites were found. No patient had both a normal radiography and a pathological bone scintigraphy, but 5 patients had both a normal bone scintigraphy and a pathological radiography. The results of the radiological examinations did not always correlate with the clinician's grading of the patient's disease. The radiological examinations had no prognostic value for the 7 patients examined on several occasions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The ability of conventional radiography and bone scintigraphy to disclose myeloma lesions varies, depending on location and size of the lesions. Radiography should remain the primary examination modality also for bone marrow transplant multiple myeloma patients. Bone scintigraphy can serve as a complement for investigating unexplained pain, e.g. caused by lesions in vertebrae or ribs.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Huddinge University Hospital, Sweden.
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Agren
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Lönnqvist
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Björkstrand
authors.forename: U
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Rudberg
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Aspelin
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016026:Bone Marrow Transplantation / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D001842:Bone and Bones / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D003131:Combined Modality Therapy; D004164:Diphosphonates; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009101:Multiple Myeloma / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000628:therapy; D015609:Organotechnetium Compounds; D011379:Prognosis; D011859:Radiography; D011877:Radionuclide Imaging; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D013669:Technetium Tc 99m Medronate / Q000031:analogs & derivatives
chemical_list: D004164:Diphosphonates; D015609:Organotechnetium Compounds; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; C033905:technetium Tc 99m 1,1-diphosphonopropane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid; C024226:technetium Tc 99m hydroxymethylene diphosphonate; D013669:Technetium Tc 99m Medronate