[1] Bodet-Milin C, Eugène T, Bailly C, et al. FDG-PET in the evaluation of myeloma in 2012[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2013, 94 (2):184-189. DOI:10.1016/j.diii.2012.12.006.
[2] Mesguich C, Fardanesh R, Tanenbaum L, et al. State of the art imaging of multiple myeloma:comparative review of FDG PET/CT imaging in various clinical settings[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2014, 83 (12):2203-2223. DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.09.012.
[3] Durie BG. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma:description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2006, 42 (11):1539-1543. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2005.11.037.
[4] Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, et al. 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[J]. Haematologica, 2007, 92 (1):50-55. DOI:10.3324/haematol.10554.
[5] Cascini GL, Falcone C, Console D, et al. Whole-body MRI and PET/CT in multiple myeloma patients during staging and after treatment:personal experience in a longitudinal study[J]. Radiol Med, 2013, 118 (6):930-948. DOI:10.1007/s11547-013-0946-7.
[6] Derlin T, Peldschus K, Münster S, et al. Comparative diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT versus whole-body MRI for determination of remission status in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation[J]. Eur Radiol, 2013, 23 (2):570-578. DOI:10.1007/s00330-012-2600-5.
[7] Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation[J]. Blood, 2011, 118 (23):5989-5995. DOI:10.1182/blood-2011-06-361386.
[8] Usmani SZ, Mitchell A, Waheed S, et al. Prognostic implications of serial 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose emission tomography in multiple myeloma treated with total therapy 3[J]. Blood, 2013, 121 (10):1819-1823. DOI:10.1182/blood-2012-08-451690.
[9] Fonti R, Larobina M, Del Vecchio S, et al. Metabolic tumor volume assessed by 18F-FDG PET/CT for the prediction of outcome in patients with multiple myeloma[J]. J Nucl Med, 2012, 53 (12):1829-1835. DOI:10.2967/jnumed.112.106500.
[10] Bladé J, de Larrea CF, Rosiñol L. Extramedullary involvement in multiple myeloma[J]. Haematologica, 2012, 97 (11):1618-1619. DOI:10.3324/haematol.2012.078519.

Tirumani SH, Sakellis C, Jacene H, et al. Role of FDG-PET/CT in Extramedullary Multiple Myeloma: Correlation of FDG-PET/CT Findings With Clinical Outcome[J/OL]. Clin Nucl Med, 2016, 41 (1): e7-13[2018-02-21]. https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=26252323. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000000902.

[12] Zamagni E, Nanni C, Mancuso K, et al. PET/CT Improves the Definition of Complete Response and Allows to Detect Otherwise Unidentifiable Skeletal Progression in Multiple Myeloma[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2015, 21 (19):4384-4390. DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0396.
[13] van Lammeren-Venema D, Regelink JC, Riphagen Ⅱ, et al. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in assessment of myeloma-related bone disease:a systematic review[J]. Cancer, 2012, 118 (8):1971-1981. DOI:10.1002/cncr.26467.
[14] Dankerl A, Liebisch P, Glatting G, et al. Multiple Myeloma:Molecular Imaging with 11C-Methionine PET/CT——Initial Experience[J]. Radiology, 2007, 242 (2):498-508. DOI:10.1148/radiol.2422051980.
[15] Nakamoto Y, Kurihara K, Nishizawa M, et al. Clinical value of 11C-methionine PET/CT in patients with plasma cell malignancy:comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2013, 40 (5):708-715. DOI:10.1007/s00259-012-2333-3.
[16] Okasaki M, Kubota K, Minamimoto R, et al. Comparison of 11C-4'-thiothymidine, 11C-methionine, and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of active lesions of multiple myeloma[J]. Ann Nucl Med, 2015, 29 (3):224-232. DOI:10.1007/s12149-014-0931-9.
[17] Lapa C, Knop S, Schreder M, et al. 11C-Methionine-PET in Multiple Myeloma:Correlation with Clinical Parameters and Bone Marrow Involvement[J]. Theranostics, 2016, 6 (2):254-261. DOI:10.7150/thno.13921.
[18] Lin C, Ho CL, Ng SH, et al. 11C-acetate as a new biomarker for PET/CT in patients with multiple myeloma:initial staging and postinduction response assessment[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2014, 41 (1):41-49. DOI:10.1007/s00259-013-2520-x.
[19] Ho CL, Chen S, Leung YL, et al. 11C-acetate PET/CT for metabolic characterization of multiple myeloma:a comparative study with 18F-FDG PET/CT[J]. J Nucl Med, 2014, 55 (5):749-752. DOI:10.2967/jnumed.113.131169.

Nanni C, Zamagni E, Cavo M, et al. 11C-choline vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing bone involvement in patients with multiple myeloma[J/OL]. World J Surg Oncol, 2007, 5: 68[2018-02-21]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913918. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-5-68.

[21] Philipp-Abbrederis K, Herrmann K, Knop S, et al. In vivo molecular imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in patients with advanced multiple myeloma[J]. EMBO Mol Med, 2015, 7 (4):477-487. DOI:10.15252/emmm.201404698.

Lapa C, Schreder M, Schirbel A, et al.[68Ga]Pentixafor-PET/CT for imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in multiple myeloma-Comparison to[18F]FDG and laboratory values[J/OL]. Theranostics, 2017, 7 (1): 205-212[2018-02-21]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5196897. DOI: 10.7150/thno.16576.

[23] Dimopoulos MA, Hillengass J, Usmani S, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with multiple myeloma:a consensus statement[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2015, 33 (6):657-664. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2014.57.9961.
[24] Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C, et al. Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008, 190 (4):1097-1104. DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.2635.
[25] Mai EK, Hielscher T, Kloth JK, et al. Association between magnetic resonance imaging patterns and baseline disease features in multiple myeloma:analyzing surrogates of tumour mass and biology[J]. Eur Radiol, 2016, 26 (11):3939-3948. DOI:10.1007/s00330-015-4195-0.
[26] Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, et al. Diffuse pattern of bone marrow involvement on magnetic resonance imaging is associated with high risk cytogenetics and poor outcome in newly diagnosed, symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma:a single center experience on 228 patients[J]. Am J Hematol, 2012, 87 (9):861-864. DOI:10.1002/ajh.23258.
[27] Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL, et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma[J]. Blood, 2009, 114 (10):2068-2076. DOI:10.1182/blood-2009-03-213280.
[28] Mai EK, Hielscher T, Kloth JK, et al. A magnetic resonance imaging-based prognostic scoring system to predict outcome in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma[J]. Haematologica, 2015, 100 (6):818-825. DOI:10.3324/haematol.2015.124115.
[29] Giles SL, DeSouza NM, Collins DJ, et al. Assessing myeloma bone disease with whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging:comparison with x-ray skeletal survey by region and relationship with laboratory estimates of disease burden[J]. Clin Radiol, 2015, 70 (6):614-621. DOI:10.1016/j.crad.2015.02.013.
[30] Pawlyn C, Fowkes L, Otero S, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI:a new gold standard for assessing disease burden in patients with multiple myeloma?[J]. Leukemia, 2016, 30 (6):1446-1448. DOI:10.1038/leu.2015.338.
[31] Horger M, Weisel K, Horger W, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for early response monitoring in multiple myeloma:preliminary results[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2011, 196 (6):W790-795. DOI:10.2214/AJR.10.5979.
[32] Lacognata C, Crimì F, Guolo A, et al. Diffusion-weighted whole-body MRI for evaluation of early response in multiple myeloma[J]. Clin Radiol, 2017, 72 (10):850-857. DOI:10.1016/j.crad.2017.05. 004.
[33] Messiou C, Kaiser M. Whole body diffusion weighted MRI-a new view of myeloma[J]. Br J Haematol, 2015, 171 (1):29-37. DOI:10.1111/bjh.13509.
[34] Koh DM, Blackledge M, Padhani AR, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI:tips, tricks, and pitfalls[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2012, 199 (2):252-262. DOI:10.2214/AJR.11.7866.

Merz M, Ritsch J, Kunz C, et al. Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Assessment of Antiangiogenic Treatment Effects in Multiple Myeloma[J/OL]. Clin Cancer Res, 2015, 21 (1): 106-112[2018-02-21]. http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/21/1/106.long. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1029.

[36] Merz M, Moehler TM, Ritsch J, et al. Prognostic significance of increased bone marrow microcirculation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma:results of a prospective DCE-MRI study[J]. Eur Radiol, 2016, 26 (5):1404-1411. DOI:10.1007/s00330-015-3928-4.
[37] Lin C, Luciani A, Belhadj K, et al. Multiple myeloma treatment response assessment with whole-body dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging[J]. Radiology, 2010, 254 (2):521-531. DOI:10.1148/radiol.09090629.
[38] Takasu M, Tani C, Sakoda Y, et al. Iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) imaging of multiple myeloma:initial clinical efficiency results[J].Eur Radiol, 2012, 22 (5):1114-1121. DOI:10.1007/s00330-011-2351-8.

Takasu M, Kaichi Y, Tani C, et al. Iterative Decomposition of Water and Fat with Echo Asymmetry and Least-Squares Estimation (IDEAL) Magnetic Resonance Imagingas a Biomarker for Symptomatic Multiple Myeloma[J/OL]. PLoS One, 2015, 10 (2): e116842[2018-02-21]. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116842. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116842.

[40] Latifoltojar A, Hall-Craggs M, Rabin N, et al. Whole body magnetic resonance imaging in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma:early changes in lesional signal fat fraction predict disease response[J]. Br J Haematol, 2017, 176 (2):222-233. DOI:10.1111/bjh.14401.
[41] Latifoltojar A, Hall-Craggs M, Bainbridge A, et al. Whole-body MRI quantitative biomarkers are associated significantly with treatment response in patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma following bortezomib induction[J]. Eur Radiol, 2017, 27 (12):5325-5336. DOI:10.1007/s00330-017-4907-8.
[42] Sachpekidis C, Hillengass J, Goldschmidt H, et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in patients with multiple myeloma[J]. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2015, 5 (5):469-478.
[43] Shah SN, Oldan JD. PET/MR Imaging of Multiple Myeloma[J]. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 2017, 25 (2):351-365. DOI:10.1016/j.mric.2017.01.003.