BACKGROUND: Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) provides diagnostic information not currently available with traditional imaging and may improve the accuracy of staging melanoma patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort review was performed of 104 patients with primary or recurrent melanoma who underwent PET to determine sensitivity/specificity for metastatic detection compared with body computed tomography (CT). One hundred fifty-seven PET and 70 CT scans were analyzed, with a median patient follow-up of 24 months. Metastases were confirmed with positive histology (87.5%) or documented disease progression (12.5%). Fifty-three patients prospectively underwent consecutive studies within a mean 3-week interval for direct comparative analysis. RESULTS: PET demonstrated 84% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI],.78 to.89) and 97% specificity (95% CI,.91 to.99), whereas CT showed 58% sensitivity (95% CI,.49 to.66) and 70% specificity (95% CI,.51 to.84). Exclusion of areas not evaluated on CT (head, neck/supraclavicular, extremities) increased CT sensitivity to 69% (95% CI,.59 to.77). Sixty-six consecutive PET and CT scans were performed with 81% and 57% of metastases detected, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PET is more sensitive and specific than CT for detection of melanoma metastasis and should be considered the primary staging study for recurrent disease. PET shows greater ability to detect soft tissue, small-bowel, and lymph node metastasis that do not meet criteria designated as abnormal by CT. PET is superior to CT even when sites not routinely evaluated by CT are excluded from comparative analysis.
BACKGROUND: Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) provides diagnostic information not currently available with traditional imaging and may improve the accuracy of staging melanomapatients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort review was performed of 104 patients with primary or recurrent melanoma who underwent PET to determine sensitivity/specificity for metastatic detection compared with body computed tomography (CT). One hundred fifty-seven PET and 70 CT scans were analyzed, with a median patient follow-up of 24 months. Metastases were confirmed with positive histology (87.5%) or documented disease progression (12.5%). Fifty-three patients prospectively underwent consecutive studies within a mean 3-week interval for direct comparative analysis. RESULTS: PET demonstrated 84% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI],.78 to.89) and 97% specificity (95% CI,.91 to.99), whereas CT showed 58% sensitivity (95% CI,.49 to.66) and 70% specificity (95% CI,.51 to.84). Exclusion of areas not evaluated on CT (head, neck/supraclavicular, extremities) increased CT sensitivity to 69% (95% CI,.59 to.77). Sixty-six consecutive PET and CT scans were performed with 81% and 57% of metastases detected, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PET is more sensitive and specific than CT for detection of melanoma metastasis and should be considered the primary staging study for recurrent disease. PET shows greater ability to detect soft tissue, small-bowel, and lymph node metastasis that do not meet criteria designated as abnormal by CT. PET is superior to CT even when sites not routinely evaluated by CT are excluded from comparative analysis.
Authors: Felix M Mottaghy; Cord Sunderkötter; Roland Schubert; Petra Wohlfart; Norbert M Blumstein; Bernd Neumaier; Gerhard Glatting; Cueneyt Ozdemir; Andreas K Buck; Karin Scharffetter-Kochanek; Sven N Reske Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-02-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marion T Harris; Salvatore U Berlangieri; Jonathan S Cebon; Ian D Davis; Andrew M Scott Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Tamara Miner Haygood; Jason Wong; Jennifer Cha Lin; Sylvia Li; Aurelio Matamoros; Colleen M Costelloe; Henry Yeung; Carl M Sandler; Rodolfo F Nunez; Rajendra Kumar; John E Madewell Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2011-11-20 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: S K Haerle; M B Soyka; D R Fischer; K Murer; K Strobel; G F Huber; D Holzmann Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Steven E Finkelstein; Jorge A Carrasquillo; John M Hoffman; Barbara Galen; Peter Choyke; Donald E White; Steven A Rosenberg; Richard M Sherry Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Felisa Jiménez-Requena; Roberto C Delgado-Bolton; Cristina Fernández-Pérez; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Judy Schwimmer; José M Pérez-Vázquez; José L Carreras-Delgado Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 9.236