The Development and Pilot Testing of a New MR Imaging Protocol to Quantify Myeloma Disease Burden and Bone Loss

Completed

Conditions: Smouldering Myeloma
Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS)
Myeloma

Registration Number: NCT03951220

Lead Sponsor: Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust

Brief Summary: In the proposed study, the investigators will aim to develop and pilot a Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging protocol and assess its ability to achieve the following: quantification of tumour burden and bone loss, detecting longitudinal changes in tumour load with therapy and detecting longitudinal changes in microarchitecture with therapy. The investigators also aim to investigate whether bone loss is better, worse or the same with different imaging techniques. This will be investigated by correlating the DXA imaging data with Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DWMRI) to see if it is possible to achieve quantifiable data of bone density.

Detailed Description: In the proposed study, the investigators will aim to develop and pilot a Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging protocol and assess its ability to achieve the following: quantification of tumour burden and bone loss, detecting longitudinal changes in tumour load with therapy and detecting longitudinal changes in microarchitecture with therapy. The investigators also aim to investigate whether bone loss is better, worse or the same with different imaging techniques. This will be investigated by correlating the DXA imaging data with Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DWMRI) to see if it is possible to achieve quantifiable data of bone density.

Using the expertise of the Oxford Centre For Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research (OCMR) for imaging protocol development, and the new Fine Structural Analysis (FSA, Osteotronix Ltd, formerly Acuitas Medical) bone density quantification MRI method (Rafferty et al 2016), the investigators will test a single protocol which combines three emerging experimental imaging sequences into a simple, non-invasive whole body imaging protocol to quantify disease burden and bone disease. This has never been done before; if shown to be feasible, such a method would have two important applications: to precisely guide commissioned therapies in the clinic, so improving patient management; and as an exciting, novel research tool for the longitudinal combined assessment of tumour burden and cancer-induced bone disease in response to therapy.

The investigators hypothesize that this imaging tool will be superior to the combined current standard-of-care investigations in the quantification of tumour burden and bone loss. There are currently no tools available for quantifying structural changes to bone and overall bone loss in myeloma.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 67

Inclusion Criteria

Not provided

Exclusion Criteria

Not provided

Study & Design

Study Type: OBSERVATIONAL

Study Design: Not specified

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Primary Outcome 1: Quantifying Tumour Burden [Correlations With Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Measurements]	At baseline	Primary Objective 1: To assess whether the novel magnetic resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone biomarkers can improve quantification of tumour burden in patients with new or relapsed myeloma at baseline assessment, compared to paraprotein levels alone. This particular section analysed the correlation between the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measurements (from the Diffusion Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DW-MRI) component of the sequences) of lytic bone lesions, with standard clinical correlates of tumour burden (serum paraprotein, and serum paraprotein-associated immunoglobulin level). The measurement of ADC from DW-MRI is further described by Messiou et. al. \[1\] \[1\] Messiou, Christina, et al. "Guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma: myeloma response assessment and diagnosis system (MY-RADS)." Radiology 291.1 (2019): 5-13.
Primary Outcome 1: Quantifying Tumour Burden [Correlations With Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS) Pattern of Disease]	At baseline	Primary Objective 1: To assess whether the novel MR protocol and exploratory bone biomarkers can improve quantification of tumour burden in patients with new or relapsed myeloma at baseline assessment, compared to paraprotein levels alone. Participants' baseline novel MR scan was analysed by an expert radiologist, and pattern of disease was qualitatively classified using the MY-RADS (Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System) imaging recommendations, described in Figure 2 by Messiou et. al. \[1\]. This particular section analysed whether standard clinical correlate of tumour burden (serum paraprotein) differed by radiological pattern of disease (e.g., normal, focal, diffuse). \[1\] Messiou, Christina, et al. "Guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma: myeloma response assessment and diagnosis system (MY-RADS)." Radiology 291.1 (2019): 5-13.
Primary Outcome 1: Quantifying Tumour Burden (Correlations With Bone Turnover Markers)	At baseline	Primary Objective 1: To assess whether the novel Magnetic Resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone biomarkers can improve quantification of tumour burden in patients with new or relapsed myeloma at baseline assessment, compared to paraprotein levels alone. This section examined correlation between baseline bone biomarkers and baseline serum paraprotein in a pooled cohort of patients from Groups 1 and 2, using Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients.
Primary Outcome 2: Quantifying Bone Loss - Inter-Group Differences in Baseline Serum P1NP (Procollagen Type 1 N-terminal Propeptide)	At baseline	Primary Outcome 2: To assess whether the novel magnetic resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone turnover markers can improve quantification of bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy Of Uncertain Significance (MGUS) at baseline assessment, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone turnover markers alone. This particular section analysed the inter-group difference in baseline serum P1NP (Procollagen Type 1 N-terminal Propeptide) bone turnover marker levels, in patients from Groups 1a (new myeloma), 1b (relapsed myeloma), 1c (smouldering myeloma) and 2 (MGUS).
Primary Outcome 2: Quantifying Bone Loss - Inter-Group Differences in Baseline Serum CTX-1 (Collagen Cross-Linked C-Telopeptide Type I)	At baseline	Primary Outcome 2: To assess whether the novel magnetic resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone turnover markers can improve quantification of bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy Of Uncertain Significance (MGUS) at baseline assessment, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone turnover markers alone. This particular section analysed the inter-group difference in baseline serum CTX-1 (Collagen Cross-Linked C-Telopeptide Type I) bone turnover marker levels, in patients from Groups 1a (new myeloma), 1b (relapsed myeloma), 1c (smouldering myeloma) and 2 (MGUS).
Primary Outcome 2: Quantifying Bone Loss - Inter-Group Differences in Baseline Serum ALP (Alkaline Phosphatase)	At baseline	Primary Outcome 2: To assess whether the novel magnetic resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone turnover markers can improve quantification of bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy Of Uncertain Significance (MGUS) at baseline assessment, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone turnover markers alone. This particular section analysed the inter-group difference in baseline serum ALP (Alkaline Phosphatase) bone turnover marker levels, in patients from Groups 1a (new myeloma), 1b (relapsed myeloma), 1c (smouldering myeloma) and 2 (MGUS).
Primary Outcome 2: Quantifying Bone Loss - Inter-Group Differences in Baseline Serum DKK1 (Dickkopf WNT Signaling Pathway Inhibitor 1)	At baseline	Primary Outcome 2: To assess whether the novel magnetic resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone turnover markers can improve quantification of bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy Of Uncertain Significance (MGUS) at baseline assessment, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone turnover markers alone. This particular section analysed the inter-group difference in baseline serum DKK1 (Dickkopf WNT Signaling Pathway Inhibitor 1) bone turnover marker levels, in patients from Groups 1a (new myeloma), 1b (relapsed myeloma), 1c (smouldering myeloma) and 2 (MGUS).
Primary Outcome 2: Quantifying Bone Loss - Inter-Group Differences in Baseline Serum Sclerostin	At baseline	Primary Outcome 2: To assess whether the novel magnetic resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone turnover markers can improve quantification of bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy Of Uncertain Significance (MGUS) at baseline assessment, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone turnover markers alone. This particular section analysed the inter-group difference in baseline serum sclerostin bone turnover marker levels, in patients from Groups 1a (new myeloma), 1b (relapsed myeloma), 1c (smouldering myeloma) and 2 (MGUS).
Primary Outcome 2: Quantifying Bone Loss - Inter-Group Differences in Baseline Serum Ratio of RANKL (Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa-Β Ligand) and OPG (Osteoprotegerin)	At baseline	Primary Outcome 2: To assess whether the novel magnetic resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone turnover markers can improve quantification of bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy Of Uncertain Significance (MGUS) at baseline assessment, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone turnover markers alone. This particular section analysed the inter-group difference in baseline ratio between RANKL (Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa-Β Ligand) and OPG (Osteoprotegerin) \[calculated as RANKL (pg/L) divided by OPG (pg/L)\] bone turnover marker levels, in patients from Groups 1a (new myeloma), 1b (relapsed myeloma), 1c (smouldering myeloma) and 2 (MGUS).
Primary Outcome 2: Quantifying Bone Loss (Inter-Biomarker Correlations)	At baseline	Primary Outcome 2: To assess whether the novel magnetic resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone turnover markers can improve quantification of bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy Of Uncertain Significance (MGUS) at baseline assessment, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone turnover markers alone. In this particular section, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was performed to assess correlations between all pairs of bone turnover markers, measured at baseline in a pooled cohort of participants from Groups 1 and 2: 1. P1NP (Procollagen Type 1 N-terminal Propeptide); 2. CTX-1 (Collagen Cross-Linked C-Telopeptide Type I); 3. ALP (Alkaline Phosphatase); 4. DKK1 (Dickkopf WNT Signaling Pathway Inhibitor 1); 5. Sclerostin; 6. Ratio of RANKL (Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa-Β Ligand) to OPG (Osteoprotegerin).
Primary Outcome 2: Quantifying Bone Loss [Correlations Between Bone Turnover Markers, DXA (Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry) and ADC (Apparent Diffusion Coefficient)]	At baseline	Primary Outcome 2: To assess whether the novel magnetic resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone turnover markers can improve quantification of bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy Of Uncertain Significance (MGUS) at baseline assessment, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone turnover markers alone. In this particular section, in a pooled cohort of participants from Groups 1 and 2, Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were calculated between all baseline bone turnover biomarkers and: 1. Baseline novel MR Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measurements; 2. Baseline DXA (Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry) BMD (Bone Mineral Density) at lumbar spine (L1-4); 2) Baseline DXA (Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry) BMD (Bone Mineral Density) at femoral neck.
Primary Outcome 1+2: Quantifying Tumour Burden (Total Spinal 'Hole' Volume)	At baseline	* This was intended as a novel end-point produced by OCMR scientists, in which high-resolution 3D imaging of the spine and pelvis are analysed for lytic lesions (holes). * Unfortunately, we were unable to collect data for the total spinal hole volume and total spine collapse volume at the point of novel MR scan, due to technical challenges.
Primary Outcome 1+2: Quantifying Tumour Burden (Total Spinal 'Collapse' Volume)	At baseline	* This was intended as a novel end-point produced by OCMR scientists, in which high-resolution 3D imaging of the spine and pelvis are analysed for the extent of vertebral collapse. * Unfortunately, we were unable to collect data for the total spinal hole volume and total spine collapse volume at the point of novel magnetic resonance (MR) scan, due to technical challenges.
Primary Outcome 1+2: Quantifying Tumour Burden [Osteotronix Fine Structural Analysis (FSA), Trabecular Wall Thickness]	At baseline	* Osteotronix' fineSA® (Fine Structural Analysis, FSA) technology extracts microstructural information from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) data sets, as a correlate of trabecular wall thickness, to indicate bone remodelling. The FSA metric has been shown to correlate tightly with gold standard bone density measurements in rats \[Evans et al, 2014\] and human cadaveric spine specimens \[Rafferty et al, 2016\]. * In this study, we had collected data during the novel MR protocol at both baseline and follow-up time points. However, we were unable to complete analysis of the FSA metrics, because of disruptions due to COVID-19, therefore the results have not been possible to report.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Secondary Outcome 1: Detect Longitudinal Changes in Tumour Load With Therapy [MY-RADS RAC (Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System Response Assessment Classification) vs IMWG (International Myeloma Working Group) Response Group Classification]	Comparison between baseline and follow-up at 6 months.	Secondary Objective 1: To assess whether the novel Magnetic Resonance (MR) protocol can improve detection of longitudinal changes in tumour burden in patients with new or relapsed myeloma during therapy, compared to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Response Group classification alone. This section compared two indicators of therapy response: 1. IMWG Response Group classification \[1\], based on % change in serum paraprotein 2. MY-RADS RAC (Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System Response Assessment Classification) based on expert radiologist interpretation of paired novel MR imaging, guided by Messiou et. al. criteria \[2\]. Ref: 1. https://www.myeloma.org/resource-library/international-myeloma-working-group-imwg-uniform-response-criteria-multiple 2. Messiou, Christina, et al. "Guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma: myeloma response assessment and diagnosis system (MY-RADS)." Radiology 291.1 (2019): 5-13.
Secondary Outcome 1: Detect Longitudinal Changes in Tumour Load With Therapy [MY-RADS RAC (Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System Response Assessment Classification) vs % Change in ADC (Apparent Diffusion Coefficient)]	Comparison between baseline and follow-up at 6 month	Secondary Objective 1: To assess whether the novel Magnetic Resonance (MR) protocol can improve detection of longitudinal changes in tumour burden in patients with new or relapsed myeloma during therapy, compared to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Response Group classification alone. This section compared two indicators of therapy response: 1. % change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measurements in participants where there was a lytic bone lesion identified on both baseline and follow-up novel MR scan amenable to ADC measurement \[1\]. 2. MY-RADS RAC (Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System Response Assessment Classification) based on expert radiologist interpretation of paired novel MR imaging, guided by Messiou et. al. criteria \[1\]. Ref: \[1\] Messiou, Christina, et al. "Guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma: myeloma response assessment and diagnosis system (MY-RADS)." Radiology 291.1 (2019): 5-13
Secondary Outcome 1: Detect Longitudinal Changes in Tumour Load With Therapy [% Change in ADC (Apparent Diffusion Coefficient) vs IMWG (International Myeloma Working Group) Response Group Classification]	Comparison between baseline and follow-up at 6month	Secondary Objective 1: To assess whether the novel Magnetic Resonance (MR) protocol can improve detection of longitudinal changes in tumour burden in patients with new or relapsed myeloma during therapy, compared to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Response Group classification alone. This section compared two indicators of therapy response: 1. IMWG Response Group classification \[1\], based on % change in serum paraprotein 2. % change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measurements in participants where there was a lytic bone lesion identified on both baseline and follow-up novel MR scan amenable to ADC measurement \[2\]. Ref: 1. https://www.myeloma.org/resource-library/international-myeloma-working-group-imwg-uniform-response-criteria-multiple 2. Messiou, Christina, et al. "Guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma: myeloma response assessment and diagnosis system (MY-RADS)." Radiology 291.1 (2019): 5-13
Secondary Outcome 2: Detect Longitudinal Changes in Bone Microarchitecture With Therapy (% Change in Bone Turnover Markers)	Comparison between baseline and follow-up at 6month	Secondary Objective 2: To assess whether the novel Magnetic Resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone biomarkers can improve detection of longitudinal changes in bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) during therapy, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone biomarkers alone. This section examined whether longitudinal change in bone turnover markers differed by chemotherapy responders vs non-responders. * The % change in bone biomarker measurements was expressed as a ratio of follow-up / baseline of paired measurements * Participants were classified by International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Response Group classification, as responder (partial response, very good partial response or complete response) or non-responder (stable, progressive or relapse).
Secondary Outcome 2: Detect Longitudinal Changes in Bone Microarchitecture With Therapy (Correlations Between % Change in Bone Turnover Markers)	Comparison between baseline and follow-up at 6month	Secondary Objective 2: To assess whether the novel Magnetic Resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone biomarkers can improve detection of longitudinal changes in bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) during therapy, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone biomarkers alone. This particular section examined the correlation between longitudinal changes in bone turnover markers between one another (calculated as a ratio of follow-up measurement divided by baseline measurement). Spearman's rank correlation was performed for the longitudinal % change between different biomarkers, to assess the relationship between longitudinal changes in these measures.
Secondary Outcome 2: Detect Longitudinal Changes in Bone Microarchitecture With Therapy [Correlations Between % Change in Bone Turnover Markers With % Change in Bone Mineral Density (BMD) or Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC)]	Comparison between baseline and follow-up at 6month	Secondary Objective 2: To assess whether the novel Magnetic Resonance (MR) protocol and exploratory bone biomarkers can improve detection of longitudinal changes in bone loss in patients with myeloma (new, relapsed, smouldering) and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) during therapy, compared to Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and established bone biomarkers alone. This section examined the correlation (using Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient) between longitudinal changes (expressed as a ratio of follow-up / baseline of paired measurements) in bone turnover markers and: 1. Longitudinal changes in DXA Bone Mineral Density (BMD) at lumbar spine (L1-4) and femoral neck; 2. Longitudinal changes in novel MR Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measurements.
Secondary Objective 3: Assess Participants' Quality of Life Throughout the Study	At baseline and six months	Secondary Objective 3: To assess how quality of life compares between groups and longitudinally in patients with myeloma, Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS), and healthy volunteers. The EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) assess the mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety and depression on a 5-point scale, in which a lower score represents better quality of life (1 = 'no problems', 5 = maximum problems, for each domain). The second part of the EQ-5D assess health on a scale where 100 is the best health and 0 is the worst health.
Secondary Outcome 4: Assess Participants' Experience of Novel Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) Scans	At baseline and six months	This questionnaire assesses the experience of the Novel Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Answers were recorded on a 5 point Likert scale where the lower number represents a better outcome. Scale descriptors: Q1 (Overall Experience): 1 (Very comfortable)/ 2 (Comfortable)/ 3 (Neither comfortable or uncomfortable)/ 4 (Uncomfortable)/ 5 (Very uncomfortable) Q2 (Adverse Effects): 1 (YES) / 0 (NO) Q3 (Length of Time): 0 (Too short) / 1 (Just right) / 2 (Too long) Q4 (Pain/Discomfort): 1 (No Increase)/ 2 (Mild Increase)/ 3 (Moderate Increase)/ 4 (High Increase)/ 5 (Severe Increase) Q5 (Likely to Reparticipate): 0 (Extremely Unlikely) / 1 (Unlikely) / 2 (Neither Likely or Unlikely) / 3 (Likely) / 4 (Extremely Likely) Q6 (How similar to expectations): 1 (YES) / 0 (NO) Q7 (Comfort with Staff): 1 (YES) / 0 (NO)