1. Introduction
Multiple myeloma is an incurable B-cell malignancy characterized by proliferation and expansion of clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow [ 1 ]. The presence of osteolytic lesions is a hallmark of multiple myeloma and occurs in up to 80% of patients at diagnosis [ 2 ]. The axial skeleton, particularly the spine, and the proximal long bones, are most often affected, but any bone can be involved [ 3 ]. Myeloma bone disease also includes hypercalcemia, pathological fractures, bone pain and risk of spinal cord compression, all of which are associated with reduced quality of life [ 4 , 5 ]. Furthermore, skeletal-related events may have a negative impact on survival [ 6 , 7 ]. Despite the new, more targeted anti-myeloma treatments, which have significantly improved the overall survival for patients with multiple myeloma [ 8 , 9 ], MBD remains a major problem [ 10 ].
2. Pathophysiology
Bone remodeling is a continuous, lifelong process where old bone is resorbed by osteoclasts and replaced by new bone created by the osteoblasts. The process is well balanced and mediated by crosstalk between osteoblasts, osteoclasts, osteocytes, immune cells and bone matrix bound factors, and is partly mediated by certain cytokines and hormones [ 11 ]. In patients with MBD, the harmonious coupling of osteoclast and osteoblast activity is lost. Increased osteoclast activity and suppressed osteoblast activity lead to increased bone resorption that is not compensated for by bone formation [ 12 ].
A crucial regulatory system of bone remodeling is the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B (RANK)/RANK ligand (RANKL) signaling pathway. Through the RANK receptor on the precursor osteoclasts, RANKL stimulates recruitment, differentiation and activity of the osteoclasts. The bone marrow stromal cells (BMSC) and osteoblasts secrete osteoprotegerin (OPG), a decoy receptor for RANKL, which inactivates RANKL, thereby reducing osteoclast activation [ 13 , 14 ]. Myeloma cells interact with the bone marrow microenvironment, activating molecular cascades that lead to increased RANKL and decreased OPG expression [ 15 , 16 ]. Consequently, RANKL/OPG ratio is increased as the key element in the increased osteoclast hyper-activation.
Secondly, osteoblast inhibition, and thereby reduced bone formation, plays an important role in the severity of MBD. Several factors are involved in downregulation of osteoblastic activity by interfering with the Wingless (Wnt)/(DKK1) signaling pathway, which is a key pathway for osteoblast recruitment and activation [ 17 ]. Dickkopf-1 (DKK1), expressed by the myeloma cells and BMSC, antagonizes the WNT-pathway, blocks the differentiation of osteoblasts, and high DKK1 expression in the bone marrow is associated with more severe MBD [ 18 , 19 , 20 ].
Besides the signaling abnormalities involved in the control of osteoclast and osteoblast activity, it has been suggested that direct myeloma cell invasion into the bone remodeling compartment is involved in the pathophysiology [ 21 ]. The remodeling compartment is a closed microenvironment, which is shielded against the bone marrow space by a thin canopy. It has been shown that these canopies may be infiltrated and disrupted by myeloma cells, thereby causing uncoupling of the normal remodeling process [ 21 ].
Figure 1 summarizes the key pathophysiological abnormalities in MBD. Beside the abovementioned pathways, many other molecular pathways and signaling molecules are hypothesized to be involved in the pathophysiology of MBD, and some data even indicate that the involved mechanisms may differ between patients as summarized in a thorough, recent review [ 22 ]. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial to improve the management of MBD.
3. Imaging
Imaging plays a crucial role when diagnosing multiple myeloma (MM). First of all, identification of lytic lesions is one of the CRAB-criteria (Calcium, Renal, Anemia, Bone) that define organ damage and the need for starting anti-myeloma therapy [ 23 ]. Imaging is also essential to distinguish solitary plasmacytoma from multiple myeloma, and for identifying extramedullary disease [ 24 , 25 ]. Finally, imaging is increasingly important in post-treatment response evaluation [ 26 ].
3.1. Definition of Myeloma Associated Bone Disease
In 2014, the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) updated the criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma and stated that one or more typical punched-out lytic bone destructions (≥5 mm in size) on CT/low-dose CT or PET/CT would meet the CRAB-criteria regardless of its visualization on skeletal radiography [ 27 ]. Increased focal FDG uptake on PET-CT alone is not sufficient to define bone disease; evidence of lytic bone destruction must be present on the CT-part. The presence of osteoporosis or vertebral compression fractures in the absence of lytic lesions is not evidence of MBD. Additionally, more than one focal lesion on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reflecting “tumoral” changes in the bone marrow, fulfils the imaging criteria for treatment-demanding MM [ 27 ]. Both MRI and PET/CT are able to detect what is referred to as focal lesions, however only lytic bone lesions detected by CT are truly evidence of MBD [ 28 ].
3.2. From Conventional Skeletal Survey to Whole-Body CT
Conventional skeletal survey (CSS) has been the standard imaging technique in the radiological diagnosis of multiple myeloma for many years [ 29 ]. A definite advantage of CSS has been its general availability and low cost. However, CSS has limitations, especially in relation to sensitivity. An older study from 1967 [ 30 ] showed that lytic bone disease only becomes detectible by CSS when over 30% of the trabecular bone is lost.
Particularly in the spine and pelvis, whole-body low dose CT (WBLDCT) has been shown to have superior sensitivity in detecting osteolytic lesions. For instance, superimposed air in the bowel can challenge the interpretation of the pelvis ( Figure 2 ). In a study of 32 patients with MM, it was shown that osteolytic lesions in the pelvis or spine were found in 50% of the patients examined with radiographs, and in 74% of patients examined with WBLDCT [ 31 ]. A large, retrospective, international, multicenter study performed a blinded comparison of CSS and WBLDCT in patients with newly diagnosed MM [ 32 ]. In general, WBLDCT was superior to CSS in identifying lytic lesions. However, the difference in the sensitivity depended on the location of the lytic lesions. WBLDCT was superior in detecting lesions in the spine and pelvis, whereas no significant difference in sensitivity was observed in long bones. In a large sub-cohort of patients with apparent smoldering MM (SMM), lytic lesions were identified by WBLDCT, but not by CSS, in 22.2% of the patients. These patients had a higher probability of progression to symptomatic myeloma compared to those without bone destructions [ 32 ]. These and similar, small cohort study observations caused a change in diagnostic practice in many MM centers. WBLDCT was implemented as the standard for diagnostic screening for MBD. Also, in the updated IMWG 2014 guideline, WBLDCT was recommended over CSS [ 27 ].
The appendicular bone marrow consists partly of adipose tissue, but in multiple myeloma patients, the bone marrow is diffusely or focally infiltrated by neoplastic plasma cells to varying degrees. Bone marrow changes are traditionally mostly investigated and reported by magnetic resonance imaging techniques (see below), but nodular or diffuse infiltration of long bones can also be detected by WBLDCT and has been reported to have prognostic significance. Identified focal and diffuse pattern in the appendicular bone marrow by WCLDCT is associated with a shorter PFS and OS [ 33 ].
Today, WBLDCT is considered standard of care in diagnostic screening for MBD [ 28 ]. If WBLDCT is not available, CSS can still be used [ 28 ].
3.3. MRI as a Diagnostic and Prognostic Tool in Patients with Multiple Myeloma
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the ability to detect early focal and diffuse infiltration patterns of the bone marrow [ 34 ]. Studies have shown that MRI, either axial or whole body, has a higher sensitivity in detecting bone marrow involvement in multiple myeloma compared to CSS and WBLDCT [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Thus, a study of 611 patients concluded that MRI was able to detect more focal lesions than CSS, and the presence of more than seven focal lesions on MRI was an independent adverse feature for survival [ 36 ]. However, it should be noticed that a focal lesion in the bone marrow on MRI is not evidence of an established lytic destruction; it reflects a dense cellular infiltration that may or may not have a connected lytic lesion, or may (or may not) precede development of a lytic lesion. Lytic destruction is identified by loss of bone on CT or radiographs. Thus, it is important to realize that MRI and CT offer complementary information in many patients [ 38 ].
In line with this, MRI may identify focal lesions in patients with presumed SMM and normal WBLDCT. Two independent studies found that the finding of more than one focal lesion on axial or whole-body MRI was associated with a 70–80% risk of progression to symptomatic disease within 2 years [ 39 , 40 ]. Based on this observation, the IMWG included the criteria “more than one focal lesion on MRI” in the updated 2014 criteria for treatment demanding disease [ 27 ]. Therefore, whole-body MRI should be the next diagnostic procedure in a patient with normal findings on WBLDCT and no other CRAB-criteria. This patient would traditionally have been diagnosed as a SMM patient; however, whole body MRI may up-classify the patient to have treatment-demanding disease. However, it should be realized that “more than one focal lesion” on MRI is not an unequivocal finding; MRI findings are not specific, and there will be a role for interpretation. Dubious findings may require confirmation by biopsy, or a wait-and-watch strategy with repeated MRI after 3-6 months. Progression of focal lesions or appearance of new focal lesions identify a subgroup of patients with true active disease, whereas unchanged findings indicate low risk and SMM phenotype [ 41 ]. In contrary to focal lesions, diffuse infiltration of the bone marrow on MRI is not considered a myeloma-defining event, but should lead to follow-up imaging in 3–6 month [ 27 ].
Figure 3 illustrates typical findings on whole-body MRI (WBMRI). WBMRI is recommended over combined spinal and pelvic MRI as lesions in rib cage, shoulder girdles and long bones could otherwise be missed.
The NICE-guidelines suggest considering whole-body MRI as first-line imaging when multiple myeloma is suspected [ 42 ]. At least in particular clinical settings MRI will be the preferred methodology. Whole-body MRI is recommended as the first choice in patients with suspected solitary bone plasmacytoma (whereas FDG-PET/CT is recommended in suspected solitary extramedullary plasmacytoma) [ 28 ] and MRI is recommended as the first-line investigation if spinal cord compression is suspected and is the chosen imaging technique to characterize whether vertebral compression fractures are caused by osteopenia only or are myeloma infiltrated [ 43 , 44 ].
3.4. The Evolving Role of FDG-PET/CT in Multiple Myeloma
Positron Emission Tomography (PET)/CT using 18 Fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) as the radioactively labelled tracer (FDG-PET/CT) permits whole-body assessment and is able to visualize both extramedullary and skeletal disease. FDG-PET offers dynamic information on metabolic active sites of disease, and CT contributes with precise anatomic information, thereby making the combined investigation able to identify and differentiate between active and inactive sites and provide information about extramedullary involvement [ 45 ]. Due to the CT part, PET/CT is superior to CSS in diagnosing lytic bone lesions [ 46 ]. Compared to MRI, PET/CT has a lower sensitivity for detection of bone marrow involvement [ 46 ]. A recent systematic review compared whole-body MRI and FDG PET/CT in their ability to detect myeloma skeletal lesions and suggested that MRI is more sensitive but less specific than FDG PET/CT. Yet, it also concluded that most of the included studies were heterogeneous and lacking an independent reference standard [ 47 ].
However, several studies have shown that PET-positive lesions offer prognostic information, both at diagnosis, during and after treatment. The number of lesions, the intensity of tracer uptake, and the presence of extra-medullary disease has been shown to be associated with inferior survival [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. In the response criteria of minimal residual disease negativity, FDG PET/CT is included and requires disappearance of abnormal tracer uptake found on baseline scan or decrease to less than mediastinal blood pool or surrounding normal tissue [ 26 ].
The IMWG recommends that PET/CT can be used in place of WBCT, but also in place of WBMRI if imaging with MRI is not possible [ 28 ].
Sodium 18 F-Fluoride (NaF) is a bone-seeking agent introduced in 1962 [ 52 ]. The uptake of 18 F-fluoride reflects blood flow and osteoblastic activity and thereby bone remodeling [ 53 , 54 ]. NaF-PET is used in the assessment of malignant and benign skeletal disease and has been suggested as a potentially valuable tool in the assessment of MM as well [ 53 , 55 ]. Hypothetically, post-treatment NaF-PET could identify bone healing activity in lytic lesions [ 25 ]. However, so far, studies have not been able to demonstrate that NaF-PET provides additional clinical information when assessing MBD or evaluating treatment response compared to FDG-PET [ 56 , 57 , 58 ]. Figure 4 shows typical findings on FDG-PET/CT and NaF-PET/CT in the same patient and illustrates how the findings differentiate.
Other PET tracers, such as choline-based tracers, have been proposed for PET/CT imaging in patients with MM. 11 C-Choline and 18 F-Fluorocholine PET/CT were initially developed for prostate cancer imaging [ 59 ]. Choline is actively incorporated into the new cell membranes [ 60 ]. Results from two smaller studies suggest that Choline PET/CT detects up to 75% more focal lesions than FDG PET/CT in patients with MM suspected of progression or relapse [ 61 , 62 ]. Thus, potentially there is a value in using other tracers than FDG in MM; however, this needs to be explored further and validated in clinical trials.
3.5. Follow-Up, Response Assessment, and Relapse
At the moment, there are no clear recommendations regarding routine follow-up, but in general, CSS should not be used for disease monitoring [ 42 ]. It is recommended to repeat relevant imaging of the same modality, PET/CT or WBMRI, as part of response evaluation in patients where active disease sites or extramedullary disease were identified prior to start of therapy. In patients with known extramedullary manifestations, imaging must be repeated for response assessment. Oppositely, for now, there is no consensus that whole body imaging should be performed as part of response evaluation in all patients. However, in patients with achieved complete remission after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT), PET-positivity may persist and predict early relapse and inferior outcome [ 63 ]. Moreover, IMWG has included FDG-PET/CT into response assessment when evaluating MRD status [ 26 ] and recommends PET/CT assessment at baseline and for response assessment in all patients included in clinical trials [ 28 ]. If PET/CT is not available, diffusion-weighted WBMRI can be used and has shown some promising ability to assess response to therapy [ 64 ].
For response assessment with FDG PET/CT as well as with WBMRI it applies that there is a continued need for standardization of the techniques, clear definition of response criteria and prospective evaluation hereof.
4. Medical Treatment
4.1. Bisphosphonates
Since Berenson’s pamidronate trial in 1996, bisphosphonates have played a key role and been standard of care in management of MBD [ 65 ]. Bisphosphonates are pyrophosphate analogues that bind to bone and are ingested by the osteoclasts, leading to inhibition of osteoclastic activity. There are different types of bisphosphonates: Pamidronate, alendronate, ibandronate and zoledronate are all examples of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates and inhibit the mevalonate pathway. Non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, like clodronate, results in accumulation of hydrolytical stable analogues of adenosine triphosphate. Zoledronate, pamidronate and clodronate have been most intensively studied in MM. Both types of bisphosphonates cause inhibition and apoptosis of osteoclasts. Furthermore, data indicate that bisphosphonates, in addition to their bone-protective effects, may have antitumor activity due to an uncoupling of the hypothesized vicious circle between bone resorption and tumor growth in MM [ 66 ].
Few prospective, randomized trials comparing the different bisphosphonates head to head have been conducted. The Rosen study from 2003 [ 67 ] compared zoledronic acid to pamidronate, in patients with either MM or breast cancer. Zoledronic acid was superior to pamidronate in reducing the risk of skeletal related events (SRE), but the subgroup analysis only found a significant difference in the breast cancer population. No data on overall survival (OS) were provided. The UK MRC Myeloma XI study from 2011 compared zoledronic acid with clodronate [ 68 , 69 ]. Zoledronic acid was found to be superior to clodronate both in regard to SRE and overall survival. The lower risk of SRE was also observed in patients without bone lesions at baseline [ 69 ].
A meta-analysis by the Cochrane database from 2017, including 24 randomized controlled trials with a total of 7293 patients, investigated the beneficial and adverse effects associated with the use of different types of bisphosphonates in patients with MM [ 70 ]. They concluded that bisphosphonates reduce overall fractures and pain, and that zoledronic acid improves overall survival compared to no bisphosphonate treatment. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the different types of bisphosphonate [ 70 ]. In contrast, a retrospective cohort study, of over 1000 patients who had been treated with either zoledronic acid or pamidronate, reported that zoledronic acid compared to pamidronate reduced the risk of SRE by 25% and was associated with an increased overall survival [ 71 ]. The current recommendation by IMWG is to initiate treatment with either zoledronic acid or pamidronate in all patients with symptomatic MM, regardless of detectible osteolytic lesions on baseline imaging [ 72 ].
In patients with smoldering myeloma, it has not been shown that bisphosphonates prolong the time to progression to symptomatic disease [ 73 , 74 ] and it is therefore not recommended.
The optimal duration of bisphosphonate treatment is still controversial. In most randomized, controlled trials, bisphosphonates were administered up to 2 years. In the Myeloma IX trial however, bisphosphonates were given until progression. A sub-analysis conducted in patients receiving treatment from year 2 and onward demonstrated persistent superiority of the more potent zoledronic acid, both in regard to SRE and OS [ 75 ]. Interestingly, the cumulative incidence of renal complication and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) seemed to reach a plateau between year 2 to 3 [ 76 ]. Another group investigated if 4 years treatment with zoledronic acid was superior to treatment for only 2 years. Prolonged treatment reduced SRE but no difference in OS was observed [ 77 ]. Some experts argue for less bisphosphonate treatment in cases where the myeloma is well treated [ 78 ]. Indeed, data from the Myeloma IX trial showed that a reduction in SRE was not observed in patients achieving at least CR after ASCT, and that no survival benefit was seen in patients achieving VGPR or better after ASCT [ 79 ].
All the referred studies used the standard dosing of pamidronate and zoledronic acid every 3–4 weeks. However, an open-label study by Himelstein et al. comprised 1154 patients with bone metastases, including 278 patients with MM, and compared zoledronic acid administrated every 4 weeks to every 12 weeks for up to 2 years [ 80 ]. No differences in SRE or side effects were observed. Unfortunately, the study had a relatively high drop-out rate of 31%, and because only about 25% of the included patients had MM, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the possible adjustment of zoledronic acid scheduling in MM. Other groups have proposed that the interval between zoledronic acid infusions could be guided by the levels of the bone resorption marker Ntx-1 (N-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen) in the urine. [ 81 ]. Though this strategy is appealing and could reduce the risk of developing ONJ, the evidence for doing this is still insufficient.
IMWG recommends that in patients who do not achieve very good partial response or better, zoledronic acid should be administrated monthly until disease progression [ 72 ]. Otherwise, it is suggested that bisphosphonates should be administered for up to 2 years and should be reinitiated at relapse, if discontinued earlier [ 72 ]. Rationally, and because bisphosphonate treatment is prophylactic, re-initiation of zoledronic acid should be at biochemical relapse and not postponed until clinical relapse. This is supported by a Spanish study that randomized patients to zoledronic acid versus no bisphosphonate at first sign of biochemical relapse. Although no effects were demonstrated on time to need of treatment or survival, the patients who were re-initiated early with zoledronic acid had less SREs at the time of treatment demanding relapse [ 82 ].
As mentioned, a serious but rare adverse event of bisphosphonate use is ONJ. Recent, randomized, controlled trials showed an incidence of 3–4% in myeloma patients receiving zoledronic acid [ 68 , 83 ]. The median time from start of treatment to ONJ was found to be 13.6 months [ 83 ]. Invasive dental procedures, dental prostheses and intravenous bisphosphonate administration and long-term treatment as well as the myeloma itself are all risk factors associated with ONJ [ 84 ]. A case-control study showed that patients, who were assessed by their dentist and had all necessary dental procedures done before initiating treatment with zoledronic acid, had a three-fold decrease in the risk of developing ONJ [ 85 ]. If invasive dental procedures are required during bisphosphonate treatment a “drug holiday” before and after invasive dental procedures is generally recommended [ 72 ], despite the fact that bisphosphonates remain in the skeleton for many years [ 86 , 87 ]. A retrospective study indicated that prophylactic antibiotics during invasive dental procedures may reduce the risk of developing ONJ [ 88 ]. Bisphosphonate-induced nephrotoxicity is another major concern when treating patients with MM. Zoledronic acid should be dose reduced already with a mild to moderate renal impairment (CrCl 30–60 mL/min) and is not recommended in patients with severe renal impairment (<30 mL/min). A recent publication, including patients from 5 European countries, showed that 51 % of all patients had renal insufficiency at the start of first line treatment, and 3% had severe renal impairment [ 89 ]. The study also found that a quarter of the patients with sufficient renal function never started bisphosphonate treatment.
4.2. Denosumab
For patients with renal impairment and normal renal function, denosumab could be a viable alternative to bisphosphonates. Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody that binds to and inhibits RANKL signaling and thereby blocks osteoclast activation [ 90 ]. It is not excreted through the kidneys, but degraded by endocytosis. Results from a large, randomized, controlled, phase 3 study, including 1718 patients with MM, showed that denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid in the time to first SRE and OS. Analysis of the exploratory progression-free survival (PFS) endpoint favored denosumab, and this somewhat puzzling observation has been further analyzed [ 91 ]. The PFS benefit was restricted to the patients planned for (undergoing?) ASCT. One hypothesis could be that RANKL signaling is involved in re-activation of “dormant” myeloma cells [ 92 ]. The observation that the PFS improvement was restricted to younger ASCT-eligible patients indicates that it could be the myelo- and stroma-ablative high-dose Melphalan in combination with denosumab that is beneficial.
The incidence of ONJ was the same for denosumab and zoledronic acid, but a higher incidence of hypocalcemia was observed among patients treated with denosumab. Denosumab was given every 4 weeks, like zoledronic acid. The study only included patients without renal impairment, and all patients had osteolysis at diagnosis. Sparse data exist on the safety of denosumab in patients with MM with renal insufficiency. In patients with bone metastases and severe renal insufficiency, denosumab can be given, but causes an increased risk of electrolyte deficiencies [ 93 ]. Unlike bisphosphonates, denosumab is not incorporated in the bone matrix and its effect declines rapidly after cessation [ 94 ]. This could be a benefit in regard to “drug holidays” prior to invasive dental procedures. Indeed, murine data indicate that ONJ may heal better after cessation of denosumab compared to zoledronic acid [ 95 ]. The downside of this rapid cessation of effect is that a rebound effect has been observed in patients with osteoporosis, where increased bone loss has been observed when treatment is discontinued, presumably because of compensatory upregulated RANKL signaling during denosumab treatment [ 96 ]. At the moment, there are no data on how to stop treatment with denosumab in patients with MM, but it has been suggested to switch treatment to bisphosphonate or to end the treatment with a single dosing of zoledronic acid [ 97 ].
5. Non-Pharmaceutical Treatment
5.1. Radiotherapy
Historically, radiotherapy has played an important part in managing MBD. One of the most common indications for radiotherapy is pain reduction. A retrospective study found that up to 84% of patients with myeloma obtained pain relief after radiotherapy [ 98 ]. Other indications are prophylactic treatment of impending pathological fractures, spinal cord compression and management of local neurological symptoms [ 99 ]. For patients with myeloma with spinal cord compression, radiotherapy alone offers excellent response rates (97%), local control (93% at 1 year, 82% at 2 years) and functional outcomes (64% of non-ambulatory regained the ability to walk) [ 100 ].
Some concerns regarding depletion of the bone marrow reserve after concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy exist. A smaller study, including 39 patients with myeloma receiving radiotherapy alone or radiotherapy with concurrent novel agents-based chemotherapy, concluded that concurrent treatment with radiotherapy and systemic treatment was safe regarding hematologic toxicity and was well tolerated in the majority of patients (87.5%) [ 101 ].
5.2. Vertebral Augmentation
Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are both minimal invasive fluoroscopic guided percutaneous surgical procedures used to reduce pain caused by vertebral compression fractures in patients with myeloma. Cement augmentation of the spine is possible at all spinal levels. In the cervical region, the vertebral bodies can be accessed through an anterior approach. Thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are reached through a transpedicular approach with a Jamshidi needle. Bone cement (polymethylmethacrylate) is injected into the vertebral body under imaging guidance. Kyphoplasty differs from vertebroplasty as the height of the fractured vertebra is restored with an inflatable balloon catheter prior to injection of bone cement. The void created by the balloon catheter while restoring the vertebral height allows for more controlled delivery of cement, reducing the risk of bone cement leakage.
Both procedures can be performed under local anesthesia in an outpatient setting. However, kyphoplasty is often performed under general anesthesia as some patients experience pain while the vertebral height is restored. For patient safety reasons, the procedure is performed under local anesthesia, allowing the patient to communicate radiating pain, which could indicate that the needles are out of target, thereby minimizing the risk of neurological injury. Figure 5 illustrates typical lumbar spine MRI findings prior to vertebroplasty, and the final radiological appearance after the procedure.
A randomized, controlled trial, including 134 cancer patients with vertebral fractures, of whom 49 had multiple myeloma, found that kyphoplasty resulted in significant pain relief, improved back-specific functional status, quality of life (QoL) and self-reported physical activity, compared to non-surgical management. These improvements persisted throughout the entire study period until the end of the study at 12 months [ 102 ]. Similar results with reduced pain and improved QoL after cement augmentation by vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty have been reported in MM cohort studies [ 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 ].
A meta-analysis from 2014 found vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty to be equally effective in reducing pain in myeloma patients [ 104 ]. In favor of kyphoplasty is a potentially better correction of the patients’ sagittal balance. Bone cement leakage is commonly reported (4–26% per treated vertebra), but is mostly asymptomatic [ 108 ].
A retrospective analysis, with 18 myeloma patients who underwent vertebroplasty prior to autologous stem cell transplant showed that vertebroplasty could be done without affecting peripheral blood stem cell collection and transplant [ 109 ]. The current recommendation in myeloma associated vertebral collapse is to consider vertebral augmentation if it causes moderate or severe pain, and particularly if it affects mobilization [ 110 ] This is supported by a recently published national guideline based on the GRADE-approach [ 111 ] recommending vertebral augmentation as treatment in patients with painful vertebral lesions and malignant hematologic disease [ 112 ].
5.3. Rehabilitation and Exercise
Exercise has been demonstrated to have a significant beneficial effect on QoL and physical function in patients with cancer [ 113 , 114 ], but only few studies have been conducted on patients with MM [ 115 , 116 ]. This is probably explained by the MBD and suspected increased risk of pathological fractures. However, two literature reviews found that exercise appeared safe and acceptable for patients with MM, but also concluded that data are limited and that no conclusion regarding the effectiveness of exercise could be drawn [ 115 , 116 ]. All studies in patients with MM have been conducted in patients before, during or after ASCT.
Baseline data from a randomized controlled trial indicate that patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma generally had lower physical function compared to the normal population, and this goes particularly for patients with bone disease and fractures [ 117 ]. A feasibility study, evaluated 30 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who were randomized 1:1 to usual care or usual care and individualized, supervised exercise combined with home-based exercise for 10 weeks. Sixty-seven percent of the patients had bone involvement. The study showed that even in older patients and in patients with MBD, individualized physical exercise is feasible and safe around the time of diagnosis [ 118 ]. The following expanded effect trial included 100 patients with newly diagnosed MM in a randomized setting did not show effect on physical function, physical activity, QoL, or pain [ 119 ]. However, the results of physical function indicated a trend for less loss of muscle strengths in the intervention group, but there is a need to pay attention to pain, since this might be worsened by the intervention [ 119 ].
6. Conclusions
Despite improved anti-myeloma treatments, MBD remains a significant problem. The understanding of the pathophysiology has improved and may lead the way for development of new bone directed treatments. Until then, anti-resorptive treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab is standard of care. Modern imaging with CT, PET/CT, and MRI play an essential role in diagnosing and monitoring MBD and help to guide supplementary treatment with irradiation and vertebral augmentation. Exercise in patients with MM is safe and feasible when relevant restrictions are taken into account; however, so far, no studies have demonstrated definite benefit of training.
Acknowledgments
Secretary Vicky Svane Kristensen, Haematology Research Unit, is highly acknowledged for critical English reading.
Author Contributions
Wrote the first draft: S.R., T.L. and N.A.; PET imaging: A.L.N.; Radiology and MR imaging: J.T.A.; Vertebral augmentation: M.Ø.A.; Rehabilitation and exercise: R.F.L.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Raab M.S. Podar K. Breitkreutz I. Richardson P.G. Anderson K.C. Multiple myeloma Lancet 2009 374 324 339 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60221-X 19541364
2. Kyle R.A. Gertz M.A. Witzig T.E. Lust J.A. Lacy M.Q. Dispenzieri A. Fonseca R. Rajkumar S.V. Offord J.R. Larson D.R. Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Mayo Clin. Proc. 2003 78 21 33 10.4065/78.1.21 12528874
3. Shortt C.P. Carty F. Murray J.G. The Role of Whole-Body Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging, and Follow-Up of Multiple Myeloma Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 2010 14 37 46 10.1055/s-0030-1248705 20229439
4. Cocks K. Cohen D. Wisløff F. Sezer O. Lee S. Hippe E. Gimsing P. Turesson I. Hajek R. Smith A. An international field study of the reliability and validity of a disease-specific questionnaire module (the QLQ-MY20) in assessing the quality of life of patients with multiple myeloma Eur. J. Cancer 2007 43 1670 1678 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.04.022 17574838
5. Jordan K. Proskorovsky I. Lewis P. Ishak J. Payne K. Lordan N. Kyriakou C. Williams C.D. Peters S. Davies F.E. Effect of general symptom level, specific adverse events, treatment patterns, and patient characteristics on health-related quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma: Results of a European, multicenter cohort study Support. Care Cancer 2014 22 417 426 10.1007/s00520-013-1991-4 24122403 PMC3882558
6. Terpos E. Berenson J. Cook R.J. Lipton A. Coleman R.E. Prognostic variables for survival and skeletal complications in patients with multiple myeloma osteolytic bone disease Leukemia 2010 24 1043 1049 10.1038/leu.2010.62 20376081
7. Augustson B.M. Begum G. Dunn J.A. Barth N.J. Davies F. Morgan G. Behrens J. Smith A. Child J.A. Drayson M.T. Early mortality after diagnosis of multiple myeloma: Analysis of patients entered onto the United Kingdom Medical Research Council trials between 1980 and 2002—Medical Research Council Adult Leukaemia Working Party J. Clin. Oncol. 2005 23 9219 9226 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.2086 16275935
8. Naymagon L. Abdul-Hay M. Novel agents in the treatment of multiple myeloma: A review about the future J. Hematol. Oncol. 2016 9 52 10.1186/s13045-016-0282-1 27363832 PMC4929712
9. Landgren O. Iskander K. Modern multiple myeloma therapy: Deep, sustained treatment response and good clinical outcomes J. Intern. Med. 2017 281 365 382 10.1111/joim.12590 28205262
10. Vallet S. Filzmoser J.-M. Pecherstorfer M. Podar K. Myeloma Bone Disease: Update on Pathogenesis and Novel Treatment Strategies Pharmaceutics 2018 10 202 10.3390/pharmaceutics10040202 PMC6321035 30355994
11. Xiao W. Wang Y. Pacios S. Li S. Graves D.T. Cellular and Molecular Aspects of Bone Remodeling Front. Oral. Biol. 2016 18 9 16 26599113 10.1159/000351895 PMC10754210
12. Giuliani N. Rizzoli V. Roodman G.D. Multiple myeloma bone disease: Pathophysiology of osteoblast inhibition Blood 2006 108 3992 3996 10.1182/blood-2006-05-026112 16917004
13. Boyle W.J. Simonet W.S. Lacey D.L. Osteoclast differentiation and activation Nature 2003 423 337 342 10.1038/nature01658 12748652
14. Han Y. You X. Xing W. Zhang Z. Zou W. Paracrine and endocrine actions of bone-the functions of secretory proteins from osteoblasts, osteocytes, and osteoclasts Bone Res. 2018 6 16 10.1038/s41413-018-0019-6 29844945 PMC5967329
15. Giuliani N. Bataille R. Mancini C. Lazzaretti M. Barillé S. Myeloma cells induce imbalance in the osteoprotegerin/osteoprotegerin ligand system in the human bone marrow environment Blood 2001 98 3527 3533 10.1182/blood.V98.13.3527 11739153
16. Terpos E. Szydlo R. Apperley J.F. Hatjiharissi E. Politou M. Meletis J. Viniou N. Yataganas X. Goldman J.M. Rahemtulla A. Soluble receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand-osteoprotegerin ratio predicts survival in multiple myeloma: Proposal for a novel prognostic index Blood 2003 102 1064 1069 10.1182/blood-2003-02-0380 12689925
17. Kim J.H. Liu X. Wang J. Chen X. Zhang H. Kim S.H. Cui J. Li R. Zhang W. Kong Y. Wnt signaling in bone formation and its therapeutic potential for bone diseases Ther. Adv. Musculoskelet. Dis. 2013 5 13 31 10.1177/1759720X12466608 23514963 PMC3582304
18. Qiang Y.-W. Chen Y. Stephens O. Brown N. Chen B. Epstein J. Barlogie B. Shaughnessy J.D. Myeloma-derived Dickkopf-1 disrupts Wnt-regulated osteoprotegerin and RANKL production by osteoblasts: A potential mechanism underlying osteolytic bone lesions in multiple myeloma Blood 2008 112 196 207 10.1182/blood-2008-01-132134 18305214 PMC2435688
19. Kristensen I.B. Christensen J.H. Lyng M.B. Møller M.B. Pedersen L.M. Rasmussen L.M. Ditzel H.J. Abildgaard N. Expression of osteoblast and osteoclast regulatory genes in the bone marrow microenvironment in multiple myeloma: Only up-regulation of Wnt inhibitors SFRP3 and DKK1 is associated with lytic bone disease Leuk. Lymphoma 2014 55 911 919 10.3109/10428194.2013.820288 23915193
20. Palma B.D. Guasco D. Pedrazzoni M. Bolzoni M. Accardi F. Costa F. Sammarelli G. Craviotto L. Filippo M.D. Ruffini L. Osteolytic lesions, cytogenetic features and bone marrow levels of cytokines and chemokines in multiple myeloma patients: Role of chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 20 Leukemia 2016 30 409 416 10.1038/leu.2015.259 26419509
21. Andersen T.L. Søe K. Sondergaard T.E. Plesner T. Delaisse J.-M. Myeloma cell-induced disruption of bone remodelling compartments leads to osteolytic lesions and generation of osteoclast-myeloma hybrid cells Br. J. Haematol. 2010 148 551 561 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07980.x 19919653
22. Børset M. Sundan A. Waage A. Standal T. Why do myeloma patients have bone disease? A historical perspective Blood Rev. 2020 41 100646 10.1016/j.blre.2019.100646 31810754
23. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: A report of the International Myeloma Working Group Br. J. Haematol. 2003 121 749 757 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04355.x 12780789
24. Caers J. Paiva B. Zamagni E. Leleu X. Bladé J. Kristinsson S.Y. Touzeau C. Abildgaard N. Terpos E. Heusschen R. Diagnosis, treatment, and response assessment in solitary plasmacytoma: Updated recommendations from a European Expert Panel J. Hematol. Oncol. 2018 11 140 10.1186/s13045-017-0549-1 29338789 PMC5771205
25. Sevcikova S. Minarik J. Stork M. Jelinek T. Pour L. Hajek R. Extramedullary disease in multiple myeloma-controversies and future directions Blood Rev. 2019 36 32 39 10.1016/j.blre.2019.04.002 31005420
26. Kumar S. Paiva B. Anderson K.C. Durie B. Landgren O. Moreau P. Munshi N. Lonial S. Bladé J. Mateos M.-V. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol. 2016 17 e328 e346 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6 27511158
27. Rajkumar S.V. Dimopoulos M.A. Palumbo A. Blade J. Merlini G. Mateos M.-V. Kumar S. Hillengass J. Kastritis E. Richardson P. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol. 2014 15 e538 e548 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5 25439696
28. Hillengass J. Usmani S. Rajkumar S.V. Durie B.G.M. Mateos M.-V. Lonial S. Joao C. Anderson K.C. García-Sanz R. Riva E. International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 e302 e312 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30309-2 31162104
29. Dimopoulos M. Terpos E. Comenzo R.L. Tosi P. Beksac M. Sezer O. Siegel D. Lokhorst H. Kumar S. Rajkumar S.V. International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple Myeloma Leukemia 2009 23 1545 1556 10.1038/leu.2009.89 19421229
30. Edelstyn G.A. Gillespie P.J. Grebbell F.S. The radiological demonstration of osseous metastases. Experimental observations Clin. Radiol. 1967 18 158 162 10.1016/S0009-9260(67)80010-2 6023348
31. Hinge M. Andersen K.T. Lund T. Jørgensen H.B. Holdgaard P.C. Ormstrup T.E. Østergaard L.L. Plesner T. Baseline bone involvement in multiple myeloma—A prospectiv prospective comparison of conventional X-ray, low-dose computed tomography, and 18flourodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in previously untreated patients Haematologica 2016 101 e415 e418 10.3324/haematol.2016.146092 27390357 PMC5046664
32. Hillengass J. Moulopoulos L.A. Delorme S. Koutoulidis V. Mosebach J. Hielscher T. Drake M. Rajkumar S.V. Oestergaard B. Abildgaard N. Whole-body computed tomography versus conventional skeletal survey in patients with multiple myeloma: A study of the International Myeloma Working Group Blood Cancer J. 2017 7 e599 10.1038/bcj.2017.78 28841211 PMC5596388
33. Matsue K. Kobayashi H. Matsue Y. Abe Y. Narita K. Kitadate A. Takeuchi M. Prognostic significance of bone marrow abnormalities in the appendicular skeleton of patients with multiple myeloma Blood Adv. 2018 2 1032 1039 10.1182/bloodadvances.2017014720 29739774 PMC5942000
34. Moulopoulos L.A. Dimopoulos M.A. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Bone Marrow in Hematologic Malignancies Blood 1997 90 2127 2147 10.1182/blood.V90.6.2127 9310464
35. Wolf M.B. Murray F. Kilk K. Hillengass J. Delorme S. Heiss C. Neben K. Goldschmidt H. Kauczor H.-U. Weber M.-A. Sensitivity of whole-body CT and MRI versus projection radiography in the detection of osteolyses in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease Eur. J. Radiol. 2014 83 1222 1230 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.008 24793843
36. Walker R. Barlogie B. Haessler J. Tricot G. Anaissie E. Shaughnessy J.D. Epstein J. van Hemert R. Erdem E. Hoering A. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Myeloma: Diagnostic and Clinical Implications J. Clin. Oncol. 2007 25 1121 1128 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.5803 17296972
37. Baur-Melnyk A. Buhmann S. Becker C. Schoenberg S.O. Lang N. Bartl R. Reiser M.F. Whole-Body MRI Versus Whole-Body MDCT for Staging of Multiple Myeloma Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008 190 1097 1104 10.2214/AJR.07.2635 18356461
38. Lecouvet F.E. Vande Berg B.C. Malghem J. Maldague B.E. Magnetic resonance and computed tomography imaging in multiple myeloma Semin. Musculoskelet. Radiol. 2001 5 43 55 10.1055/s-2001-12920 11371335
39. Kastritis E. Moulopoulos L.A. Terpos E. Koutoulidis V. Dimopoulos M.A. The prognostic importance of the presence of more than one focal lesion in spine MRI of patients with asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma Leukemia 2014 28 2402 2403 10.1038/leu.2014.230 25079172
40. Hillengass J. Fechtner K. Weber M.-A. Bäuerle T. Ayyaz S. Heiss C. Hielscher T. Moehler T.M. Egerer G. Neben K. Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2010 28 1606 1610 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5356 20177023
41. Merz M. Hielscher T. Wagner B. Sauer S. Shah S. Raab M.S. Jauch A. Neben K. Hose D. Egerer G. Predictive value of longitudinal whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with smoldering multiple myeloma Leukemia 2014 28 1902 1908 10.1038/leu.2014.75 24535407
42. Pratt G. Morris T.C. Review of the NICE guidelines for multiple myeloma Int. J. Lab. Hematol. 2017 39 3 13 10.1111/ijlh.12581 27997752
43. 1 Guidance|Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression in Adults: Risk Assessment, Diagnosis and Management|Guidance|NICE Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG75/chapter/1-Guidance#imaging (accessed on 4 March 2020)
44. Mauch J.T. Carr C.M. Cloft H. Diehn F.E. Review of the Imaging Features of Benign Osteoporotic and Malignant Vertebral Compression Fractures Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2018 39 1584 1592 10.3174/ajnr.A5528 29348133 PMC7655272
45. Role of 18 F-FDG PET/CT in the Diagnosis and Management of Multiple Myeloma and Other Plasma Cell Disorders: A Consensus Statement by the International Myeloma Working Group-Clinical Key Available online: https://www-clinicalkey-com.proxy2-bib.sdu.dk/#!/content/journal/1-s2.0-S1470204517301894 (accessed on 5 March 2020)
46. Zamagni E. Nanni C. Patriarca F. Englaro E. Castellucci P. Geatti O. Tosi P. Tacchetti P. Cangini D. Perrone G. A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Haematologica 2007 92 50 55 10.3324/haematol.10554 17229635
47. Gariani J. Westerland O. Natas S. Verma H. Cook G. Goh V. Comparison of whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) to whole body computed tomography (WBCT) or 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT (18F-FDG PET/CT) in patients with myeloma: Systematic review of diagnostic performance Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 2018 124 66 72 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.02.012 29548488
48. Bartel T.B. Haessler J. Brown T.L.Y. Shaughnessy J.D. van Rhee F. Anaissie E. Alpe T. Angtuaco E. Walker R. Epstein J. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma Blood 2009 114 2068 2076 10.1182/blood-2009-03-213280 19443657 PMC2744568
49. Zamagni E. Patriarca F. Nanni C. Zannetti B. Englaro E. Pezzi A. Tacchetti P. Buttignol S. Perrone G. Brioli A. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation Blood 2011 118 5989 5995 10.1182/blood-2011-06-361386 21900189
50. Usmani S.Z. Mitchell A. Waheed S. Crowley J. Hoering A. Petty N. Brown T. Bartel T. Anaissie E. van Rhee F. Prognostic implications of serial 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose emission tomography in multiple myeloma treated with total therapy 3 Blood 2013 121 1819 1823 10.1182/blood-2012-08-451690 23305732 PMC3591801
51. Moon S.H. Choi W.H. Yoo I.R. Lee S.J. Paeng J.C. Jeong S.Y. Lee S.-W. Kim K. Choi J.Y. Prognostic Value of Baseline 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Multicenter Cohort Study Korean J. Radiol. 2018 19 481 488 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.3.481 29713226 PMC5904475
52. Blau M. Nagler W. Bender M.A. Fluorine-18: A new isotope for bone scanning J. Nucl. Med. 1962 3 332 334 13869926
53. Grant F.D. Fahey F.H. Packard A.B. Davis R.T. Alavi A. Treves S.T. Skeletal PET with 18F-Fluoride: Applying New Technology to an Old Tracer J. Nucl. Med. 2008 49 68 78 10.2967/jnumed.106.037200 18077529
54. Even-Sapir E. Mishani E. Flusser G. Metser U. 18F-Fluoride Positron Emission Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Semin. Nucl. Med. 2007 37 462 469 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2007.07.002 17920353
55. Nishiyama Y. Tateishi U. Shizukuishi K. Shishikura A. Yamazaki E. Shibata H. Yoneyama T. Ishigatsubo Y. Inoue T. Role of 18F-fluoride PET/CT in the assessment of multiple myeloma: Initial experience Ann. Nucl. Med. 2013 27 78 83 10.1007/s12149-012-0647-7 22914967
56. Sachpekidis C. Goldschmidt H. Hose D. Pan L. Cheng C. Kopka K. Haberkorn U. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A. PET/CT studies of multiple myeloma using (18) F-FDG and (18) F-NaF: Comparison of distribution patterns and tracers’ pharmacokinetics Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2014 41 1343 1353 10.1007/s00259-014-2721-y 24562650
57. Ak İ. Onner H. Akay O.M. Is there any complimentary role of F-18 NaF PET/CT in detecting of osseous involvement of multiple myeloma? A comparative study for F-18 FDG PET/CT and F-18 FDG NaF PET/CT Ann. Hematol. 2015 94 1567 1575 10.1007/s00277-015-2410-3 26068066
58. Sachpekidis C. Hillengass J. Goldschmidt H. Wagner B. Haberkorn U. Kopka K. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A. Treatment response evaluation with 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT in multiple myeloma patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2017 44 50 62 10.1007/s00259-016-3502-6 27573638
59. DeGrado T.R. Coleman R.E. Wang S. Baldwin S.W. Orr M.D. Robertson C.N. Polascik T.J. Price D.T. Synthesis and evaluation of 18F-labeled choline as an oncologic tracer for positron emission tomography: Initial findings in prostate cancer Cancer Res. 2001 61 110 117 11196147
60. Yoshimoto M. Waki A. Yonekura Y. Sadato N. Murata T. Omata N. Takahashi N. Welch M.J. Fujibayashi Y. Characterization of acetate metabolism in tumor cells in relation to cell proliferation: Acetate metabolism in tumor cells Nucl. Med. Biol. 2001 28 117 122 10.1016/S0969-8051(00)00195-5 11295421
61. Nanni C. Zamagni E. Cavo M. Rubello D. Tacchetti P. Pettinato C. Farsad M. Castellucci P. Ambrosini V. Montini G.C. 11C-choline vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing bone involvement in patients with multiple myeloma World J. Surg. Oncol. 2007 5 68 10.1186/1477-7819-5-68 17584499 PMC1913918
62. Cassou-Mounat T. Balogova S. Nataf V. Calzada M. Huchet V. Kerrou K. Devaux J.-Y. Mohty M. Talbot J.-N. Garderet L. 18F-fluorocholine versus 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for PET/CT imaging in patients with suspected relapsing or progressive multiple myeloma: A pilot study Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2016 43 1995 2004 10.1007/s00259-016-3392-7 27121691
63. Moreau P. Attal M. Caillot D. Macro M. Karlin L. Garderet L. Facon T. Benboubker L. Escoffre-Barbe M. Stoppa A.-M. Prospective Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography at Diagnosis and Before Maintenance Therapy in Symptomatic Patients With Multiple Myeloma Included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 Trial: Results of the IMAJEM Study J. Clin. Oncol. 2017 35 2911 2918 28686535 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.2975 PMC5578392
64. Pawlyn C. Fowkes L. Otero S. Jones J.R. Boyd K.D. Davies F.E. Morgan G.J. Collins D.J. Sharma B. Riddell A. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI: A new gold standard for assessing disease burden in patients with multiple myeloma? Leukemia 2016 30 1446 1448 10.1038/leu.2015.338 26648535 PMC4895156
65. Berenson J.R. Lichtenstein A. Porter L. Dimopoulos M.A. Bordoni R. George S. Lipton A. Keller A. Ballester O. Kovacs M.J. Efficacy of pamidronate in reducing skeletal events in patients with advanced multiple myeloma. Myeloma Aredia Study Group N. Engl. J. Med. 1996 334 488 493 10.1056/NEJM199602223340802 8559201
66. Clézardin P. Mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates in oncology: A scientific concept evolving from antiresorptive to anticancer activities Bonekey Rep. 2013 2 2 10.1038/bonekey.2013.1 PMC3722725 24422040
67. Rosen L.S. Gordon D. Kaminski M. Howell A. Belch A. Mackey J. Apffelstaedt J. Hussein M.A. Coleman R.E. Reitsma D.J. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma Cancer 2003 98 1735 1744 10.1002/cncr.11701 14534891
68. Morgan G.J. Davies F.E. Gregory W.M. Cocks K. Bell S.E. Szubert A.J. Navarro-Coy N. Drayson M.T. Owen R.G. Feyler S. First-line treatment with zoledronic acid as compared with clodronic acid in multiple myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): A randomised controlled trial Lancet 2010 376 1989 1999 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62051-X 21131037 PMC3639680
69. Morgan G.J. Child J.A. Gregory W.M. Szubert A.J. Cocks K. Bell S.E. Navarro-Coy N. Drayson M.T. Owen R.G. Feyler S. Effects of zoledronic acid versus clodronic acid on skeletal morbidity in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): Secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial Lancet Oncol. 2011 12 743 752 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70157-7 21771568 PMC3148431
70. Mhaskar R. Kumar A. Miladinovic B. Djulbegovic B. Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma: An updated network meta-analysis Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017 12 CD003188 10.1002/14651858.CD003188.pub4 29253322 PMC6486151
71. Sanfilippo K.M. Gage B. Luo S. Weilbaecher K. Tomasson M. Vij R. Colditz G. Carson K. Comparative effectiveness on survival of zoledronic acid versus pamidronate in multiple myeloma Leuk. Lymphoma 2015 56 615 621 10.3109/10428194.2014.924117 24844358 PMC4399231
72. Terpos E. Morgan G. Dimopoulos M.A. Drake M.T. Lentzsch S. Raje N. Sezer O. García-Sanz R. Shimizu K. Turesson I. International Myeloma Working Group recommendations for the treatment of multiple myeloma-related bone disease J. Clin. Oncol. 2013 31 2347 2357 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.7901 23690408 PMC4878084
73. D’Arena G. Gobbi P.G. Broglia C. Sacchi S. Quarta G. Baldini L. Iannitto E. Falcone A. Guariglia R. Pietrantuono G. Pamidronate versus observation in asymptomatic myeloma: Final results with long-term follow-up of a randomized study Leuk. Lymphoma 2011 52 771 775 10.3109/10428194.2011.553000 21299465
74. Musto P. Petrucci M.T. Bringhen S. Guglielmelli T. Caravita T. Bongarzoni V. Andriani A. D’Arena G. Balleari E. Pietrantuono G. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing zoledronic acid versus observation in patients with asymptomatic myeloma Cancer 2008 113 1588 1595 10.1002/cncr.23783 18683218
75. Morgan G.J. Davies F.E. Gregory W.M. Szubert A.J. Bell S.E. Drayson M.T. Owen R.G. Ashcroft A.J. Jackson G.H. Child J.A. Effects of induction and maintenance plus long-term bisphosphonates on bone disease in patients with multiple myeloma: The Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Trial Blood 2012 119 5374 5383 10.1182/blood-2011-11-392522 22498739
76. Jackson G.H. Morgan G.J. Davies F.E. Wu P. Gregory W.M. Bell S.E. Szubert A.J. Coy N.N. Drayson M.T. Owen R.G. Osteonecrosis of the jaw and renal safety in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study results Br. J. Haematol. 2014 166 109 117 10.1111/bjh.12861 24673708
77. Aviles A. Nambo M.-J. Huerta-Guzman J. Cleto S. Neri N. Prolonged Use of Zoledronic Acid (4 Years) Did Not Improve Outcome in Multiple Myeloma Patients Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2017 17 207 210 10.1016/j.clml.2017.02.007 28284745
78. Durie B.G.M. Use of Bisphosphonates in Multiple Myeloma: IMWG Response to Mayo Clinic Consensus Statement Mayo Clin. Proc. 2007 82 516 517 10.4065/82.4.516 17418085
79. Larocca A. Child J.A. Cook G. Jackson G.H. Russell N. Szubert A. Gregory W.M. Brioli A. Owen R.G. Drayson M.T. The impact of response on bone-directed therapy in patients with multiple myeloma Blood 2013 122 2974 2977 10.1182/blood-2013-04-498139 23974194
80. Himelstein A.L. Foster J.C. Khatcheressian J.L. Roberts J.D. Seisler D.K. Novotny P.J. Qin R. Go R.S. Grubbs S.S. O’Connor T. Effect of Longer-Interval vs Standard Dosing of Zoledronic Acid on Skeletal Events in Patients With Bone Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA 2017 317 48 58 10.1001/jama.2016.19425 28030702 PMC5321662
81. Raje N. Vescio R. Montgomery C.W. Badros A. Munshi N. Orlowski R. Hadala J.T. Warsi G. Argonza-Aviles E. Ericson S.G. Bone Marker-Directed Dosing of Zoledronic Acid for the Prevention of Skeletal Complications in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: Results of the Z-MARK Study Clin. Cancer Res. 2016 22 1378 1384 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1864 26644410
82. García-Sanz R. Oriol A. Moreno M.J. de la Rubia J. Payer A.R. Hernández M.T. Palomera L. Teruel A.I. Blanchard M.J. Gironella M. Zoledronic acid as compared with observation in multiple myeloma patients at biochemical relapse: Results of the randomized AZABACHE Spanish trial Haematologica 2015 100 1207 1213 10.3324/haematol.2015.128439 26069291 PMC4800701
83. Raje N. Terpos E. Willenbacher W. Shimizu K. Garcia-Sanz R. Durie B. Legiec W. Krejci M. Laribi K. Zhu L. Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone disease treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: An international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study Lancet Oncol. 2018 19 370 381 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X 29429912
84. Identification of Risk Factors for Bisphosphonate-Associated Atypical Femoral Fractures and Osteonecrosis of the Jaw in a Pharmacovigilance Database-Rebecca S. Bejhed, Mohammad Kharazmi, Pär Hallberg 2016 Available online: https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy1-bib.sdu.dk/doi/10.1177/1060028016649368 (accessed on 23 March 2020) 10.1177/1060028016649368 27179251
85. Dimopoulos M.A. Kastritis E. Bamia C. Melakopoulos I. Gika D. Roussou M. Migkou M. Eleftherakis-Papaiakovou E. Christoulas D. Terpos E. Reduction of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) after implementation of preventive measures in patients with multiple myeloma treated with zoledronic acid Ann. Oncol. 2009 20 117 120 10.1093/annonc/mdn554 18689864
86. Khan S.A. Kanis J.A. Vasikaran S. Kline W.F. Matuszewski B.K. McCloskey E.V. Beneton M.N. Gertz B.J. Sciberras D.G. Holland S.D. Elimination and biochemical responses to intravenous alendronate in postmenopausal osteoporosis J. Bone Miner. Res. 1997 12 1700 1707 10.1359/jbmr.1997.12.10.1700 9333131
87. Lin J.H. Bisphosphonates: A review of their pharmacokinetic properties Bone 1996 18 75 85 10.1016/8756-3282(95)00445-9 8833200
88. Montefusco V. Gay F. Spina F. Miceli R. Maniezzo M. Ambrosini M.T. Farina L. Piva S. Palumbo A. Boccadoro M. Antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures may reduce the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with multiple myeloma treated with bisphosphonates Leuk. Lymphoma 2008 49 2156 2162 10.1080/10428190802483778 19021059
89. Mateos M.-V. Fink L. Koneswaran N. Intorcia M. Giannopoulou C. Niepel D. Cavo M. Bone complications in patients with multiple myeloma in five European countries: A retrospective patient chart review BMC Cancer 2020 20 170 10.1186/s12885-020-6596-y 32126974 PMC7055060
90. Baron R. Ferrari S. Russell R.G.G. Denosumab and bisphosphonates: Different mechanisms of action and effects Bone 2011 48 677 692 10.1016/j.bone.2010.11.020 21145999
91. Terpos E. García-Sanz R. Shimizu K. Willenbacher W. Glennane A. Dai T. Pasteiner W. Raje N.S. Progression-Free Survival Analysis of Denosumab Vs Zoledronic Acid in Intent to Transplant Multiple Myeloma Patients Based on Treatment Regimen and Baseline Characteristics Blood 2019 134 606 10.1182/blood-2019-127290
92. Lawson M.A. McDonald M.M. Kovacic N. Hua Khoo W. Terry R.L. Down J. Kaplan W. Paton-Hough J. Fellows C. Pettitt J.A. Osteoclasts control reactivation of dormant myeloma cells by remodelling the endosteal niche Nat. Commun. 2015 6 8983 10.1038/ncomms9983 26632274 PMC4686867
93. Watkins K.R. Rogers J.E. Atkinson B. Tolerability of denosumab in metastatic solid tumor patients with renal insufficiency Support. Care Cancer 2015 23 1657 1662 10.1007/s00520-014-2521-8 25421444
94. Bone H.G. Bolognese M.A. Yuen C.K. Kendler D.L. Miller P.D. Yang Y.-C. Grazette L. San Martin J. Gallagher J.C. Effects of Denosumab Treatment and Discontinuation on Bone Mineral Density and Bone Turnover Markers in Postmenopausal Women with Low Bone Mass J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2011 96 972 980 10.1210/jc.2010-1502 21289258
95. De Molon R.S. Shimamoto H. Bezouglaia O. Pirih F.Q. Dry S.M. Kostenuik P. Boyce R.W. Dwyer D. Aghaloo T.L. Tetradis S. OPG-Fc but Not Zoledronic Acid Discontinuation Reverses Osteonecrosis of the Jaws (ONJ) in Mice J. Bone Miner. Res. 2015 30 1627 1640 10.1002/jbmr.2490 25727550 PMC4995600
96. Lamy O. Stoll D. Aubry-Rozier B. Rodriguez E.G. Stopping Denosumab Curr. Osteoporos. Rep. 2019 17 8 15 10.1007/s11914-019-00502-4 30659428
97. Tsourdi E. Langdahl B. Cohen-Solal M. Aubry-Rozier B. Eriksen E.F. Guañabens N. Obermayer-Pietsch B. Ralston S.H. Eastell R. Zillikens M.C. Discontinuation of Denosumab therapy for osteoporosis: A systematic review and position statement by ECTS Bone 2017 105 11 17 10.1016/j.bone.2017.08.003 28789921
98. eTalamo G. eDimaio C. Abbi K.K. Pandey M.K. eMalysz J. Creer M.H. Zhu J. Mir M.A. Varlotto J.M. Current Role of Radiation Therapy for Multiple Myeloma Front. Oncol. 2015 5 40 25741475 10.3389/fonc.2015.00040 PMC4332323
99. Terpos E. Kleber M. Engelhardt M. Zweegman S. Gay F. Kastritis E. van de Donk N.W.C.J. Bruno B. Sezer O. Broijl A. European Myeloma Network Guidelines for the Management of Multiple Myeloma-related Complications Haematologica 2015 100 1254 1266 10.3324/haematol.2014.117176 26432383 PMC4591757
100. Rades D. Conde-Moreno A.J. Cacicedo J. Segedin B. Rudat V. Schild S.E. Excellent outcomes after radiotherapy alone for malignant spinal cord compression from myeloma Radiol. Oncol. 2016 50 337 340 10.1515/raon-2016-0029 27679551 PMC5024659
101. Shin S.M. Chouake R.J. Sanfilippo N.J. Rapp T.B. Cook P. Formenti S.C. Mazumder A. Silverman J.S. Feasibility and Efficacy of Local Radiotherapy With Concurrent Novel Agents in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2014 14 480 484 10.1016/j.clml.2014.07.010 25176474
102. Berenson J. Pflugmacher R. Jarzem P. Zonder J. Schechtman K. Tillman J.B. Bastian L. Ashraf T. Vrionis F. Balloon kyphoplasty versus non-surgical fracture management for treatment of painful vertebral body compression fractures in patients with cancer: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial Lancet Oncol. 2011 12 225 235 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70008-0 21333599
103. Julka A. Tolhurst S. Srinivasan R. Graziano G. Functional Outcomes and Height Restoration for Patients with Multiple Myeloma-Related Osteolytic Vertebral Compression Fractures Treated with Kyphoplasty J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 2014 27 342 346 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318260a076 22668752
104. Khan O.A. Brinjikji W. Kallmes D.F. Vertebral Augmentation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Pooled Analysis of Published Case Series Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2014 35 207 210 10.3174/ajnr.A3622 23868153 PMC7966469
105. Mendoza T.R. Koyyalagunta D. Burton A.W. Thomas S.K. Phan M.-H.V. Giralt S.A. Shah J.J. Cleeland C.S. Changes in pain and other symptoms in patients with painful multiple myeloma-related vertebral fracture treated with kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty J. Pain 2012 13 564 570 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.03.003 22543044 PMC3367066
106. Malhotra K. Butler J.S. Yu H.M. Selvadurai S. D’Sa S. Rabin N. Kyriakou C. Yong K. Molloy S. Spinal disease in myeloma: Cohort analysis at a specialist spinal surgery centre indicates benefit of early surgical augmentation or bracing BMC Cancer 2016 16 444 10.1186/s12885-016-2495-7 27401073 PMC4939590
107. Simony A. Hansen E.J. Gaurilcikas M. Abildgaard N. Andersen M.O. Pain reduction after percutaneous vertebroplasty for myeloma-associated vertebral fractures Dan. Med. J. 2014 61 A4945 25441724
108. Health Quality Ontario Vertebral Augmentation Involving Vertebroplasty or Kyphoplasty for Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review Ont. Health Technol. Assess. Ser. 2016 16 1 202 PMC4902848 27298655
109. Tosi P. Sintini M. Molinari A.L. Imola M. Ciotta G. Tomassetti S. Mianulli A.M. Ratta M. Mangianti S. Merli A. Early application of percutaneous vertebroplasty reduces pain without affecting peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection and transplant in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients Eur. J. Cancer Care 2014 23 773 778 10.1111/ecc.12158 24289239
110. Kyriakou C. Molloy S. Vrionis F. Alberico R. Bastian L. Zonder J.A. Giralt S. Raje N. Kyle R.A. Roodman D.G.D. The role of cement augmentation with percutaneous vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma: A consensus statement from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Blood Cancer J. 2019 9 27 10.1038/s41408-019-0187-7 30808868 PMC6391474
111. Guyatt G.H. Oxman A.D. Vist G.E. Kunz R. Falck-Ytter Y. Alonso-Coello P. Schünemann H.J. GRADE Working Group GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations Br. Med. J. 2008 336 924 926 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD 18436948 PMC2335261
112. Rousing R. Kirkegaard A.O. Nielsen M. Holtved E. Sørensen L.H. Lund T. Olesen V. Andersen M.Ø. Percutaneous vertebroplasty as treatment of malignant vertebral lesions: A systematic review and GRADE evaluation resulting in a Danish national clinical guideline Eur. Spine J. 2020 29 1573 1579 10.1007/s00586-020-06392-w 32246231
113. Sweegers M.G. Altenburg T.M. Chinapaw M.J. Kalter J. Verdonck-de Leeuw I.M. Courneya K.S. Newton R.U. Aaronson N.K. Jacobsen P.B. Brug J. Which exercise prescriptions improve quality of life and physical function in patients with cancer during and following treatment? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Br. J. Sports Med. 2018 52 505 513 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097891 28954800
114. Campbell K.L. Winters-Stone K.M. Wiskemann J. May A.M. Schwartz A.L. Courneya K.S. Zucker D.S. Matthews C.E. Ligibel J.A. Gerber L.H. Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019 51 2375 2390 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002116 31626055 PMC8576825
115. Smith L. McCourt O. Henrich M. Paton B. Yong K. Wardle J. Fisher A. Multiple myeloma and physical activity: A scoping review BMJ Open 2015 5 e009576 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009576 26614625 PMC4663409
116. Gan J.H. Sim C.Y.L. Santorelli L.A. The effectiveness of exercise programmes in patients with multiple myeloma: A literature review Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2016 98 275 289 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.11.005 26633247
117. Larsen R.F. Jarden M. Minet L.R. Frølund U.C. Möller S. Abildgaard N. Physical function in patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma; a Danish cohort study BMC Cancer 2020 20 169 10.1186/s12885-020-6637-6 32126972 PMC7055017
118. Larsen R.F. Jarden M. Minet L.R. Frølund U.C. Abildgaard N. Supervised and home-based physical exercise in patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma—A randomized controlled feasibility study Pilot Feasibil. Stud. 2019 5 130 10.1186/s40814-019-0518-2 31741745 PMC6849284
119. Larsen R.F. Jaden M. Minet L.R. Frølund U.C. Möller S. Abildgaard N. Exercise in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Multiple Myeloma—A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Effects on Physical Function, Physical Activity. European Haematology Association (EHA) Congress 2020 Available online: https://library.ehaweb.org/eha/2020/eha25th/294240/rikke.faebo.larsen.exercise.in.newly.diagnosed.patients.with.multiple.myeloma.html?f=listing%3D0%2Abrowseby%3D8%2Asortby%3D1%2Asearch%3Dep1760 (accessed on 12 June 2020)