BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG-PET) is available for evaluation of patients with melanoma. This study evaluates the potential of FDG-PET to improve on conventional imaging (CI) in patients with stage IV melanoma undergoing metastasectomy. METHODS: This was a prospective study comparing radiological evaluation of patients who underwent metastasectomy for palliation or cure. Patients underwent preoperative evaluation by physical examination, CI by computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging, and FDG-PET. Independent observers performed three separate analyses of CI alone, FDG-PET alone, or FDG-PET read with knowledge of CI (FDG-PET + CI). Abnormalities were reported as benign or malignant and assessed by pathologic analysis or by clinical outcome determined by disease progression detected on serial evaluations. RESULTS: Ninety-four lesions were noted in 18 patients who underwent preoperative assessment, metastasectomy, and long-term follow up (median, 24 months). Lesion-by-lesion analysis for CI demonstrated a sensitivity of 76%, a specificity of 87%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 86%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 76%. FDG-PET demonstrated a sensitivity of 79%, a specificity of 87%, a PPV of 86%, and an NPV of 80%. For FDG-PET + CI, the sensitivity was 88%, specificity was 91%, and PPV and NPV were 91% and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combined use of FDG-PET and CI may be an accurate strategy to identify sites of disease in patients with stage IV melanoma being considered for metastasectomy. Interpreted independently, FDG-PET and CI seemed to be equivalent modalities. FDG-PET + CI had both the highest sensitivity on lesion-by-lesion analysis and the best accuracy on patient-by-patient analysis.
BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG-PET) is available for evaluation of patients with melanoma. This study evaluates the potential of FDG-PET to improve on conventional imaging (CI) in patients with stage IV melanoma undergoing metastasectomy. METHODS: This was a prospective study comparing radiological evaluation of patients who underwent metastasectomy for palliation or cure. Patients underwent preoperative evaluation by physical examination, CI by computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging, and FDG-PET. Independent observers performed three separate analyses of CI alone, FDG-PET alone, or FDG-PET read with knowledge of CI (FDG-PET + CI). Abnormalities were reported as benign or malignant and assessed by pathologic analysis or by clinical outcome determined by disease progression detected on serial evaluations. RESULTS: Ninety-four lesions were noted in 18 patients who underwent preoperative assessment, metastasectomy, and long-term follow up (median, 24 months). Lesion-by-lesion analysis for CI demonstrated a sensitivity of 76%, a specificity of 87%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 86%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 76%. FDG-PET demonstrated a sensitivity of 79%, a specificity of 87%, a PPV of 86%, and an NPV of 80%. For FDG-PET + CI, the sensitivity was 88%, specificity was 91%, and PPV and NPV were 91% and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combined use of FDG-PET and CI may be an accurate strategy to identify sites of disease in patients with stage IV melanoma being considered for metastasectomy. Interpreted independently, FDG-PET and CI seemed to be equivalent modalities. FDG-PET + CI had both the highest sensitivity on lesion-by-lesion analysis and the best accuracy on patient-by-patient analysis.
Authors: J D Wagner; D Schauwecker; D Davidson; J J Coleman; S Saxman; G Hutchins; C Love; J T Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: B Krug; M Dietlein; W Groth; H Stützer; T Psaras; A Gossmann; K Scheidhauer; H Schicha; K Lackner Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Yan Xing; Yulia Bronstein; Merrick I Ross; Robert L Askew; Jeffrey E Lee; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Richard Royal; Janice N Cormier Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Georgia M Beasley; Colin Parsons; Gloria Broadwater; M Angelica Selim; Suroosh Marzban; Amy P Abernethy; April K S Salama; Edward A Eikman; Terence Wong; Jonathan S Zager; Douglas S Tyler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Rodrigo Arrangoiz; Pavlos Papavasiliou; Carrie A Stransky; Jian Q Yu; Li Tianyu; Elin R Sigurdson; Adam C Berger; Jeffrey M Farma Journal: Dermatol Res Pract Date: 2012-05-13
Authors: Jacqueline Dinnes; Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano; Yemisi Takwoingi; Seau Tak Cheung; Paul Nathan; Rubeta N Matin; Naomi Chuchu; Sue Ann Chan; Alana Durack; Susan E Bayliss; Abha Gulati; Lopa Patel; Clare Davenport; Kathie Godfrey; Manil Subesinghe; Zoe Traill; Jonathan J Deeks; Hywel C Williams Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-07-01
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