Literature DB >> 15977211

Inefficacy of F-18 fluorodeoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography scans for initial evaluation in early-stage cutaneous melanoma.

Jeffrey D Wagner1, Donald Schauwecker, Darrell Davidson, Theodore Logan, John J Coleman, Gary Hutchins, Charlene Love, Stacie Wenck, Joanne Daggy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of initial F-18 fluorodeoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scanning for detection of occult lymph node and distant metastases in patients with early-stage cutaneous melanoma.
METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective nonrandomized clinical trial. Inclusion criteria were patients with cutaneous melanoma tumors > 1.0 mm Breslow thickness, local disease recurrence, or solitary intransit metastases without regional lymph or distant metastases by standard clinical evaluation. All patients underwent whole-body FDG-PET scanning before surgical therapy. Abnormal PET findings were studied by targeted conventional imaging and/or biopsy. FDG-PET scans were interpreted in a blinded fashion. Regional lymph node basins were staged by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). PET scan findings in regional lymph nodes were compared with histology of SLNB specimens. Abnormal distant PET scan findings were studied with repeat conventional scan imaging at 3-6 months and were correlated with the first site(s) of clinical disease recurrence. Blinded PET scan findings were correlated with all information to determine sensitivity and specificity.
RESULTS: There were 144 assessable patients with a mean tumor depth of 2.8 mm. The median follow-up for these patients was 41.4 months. Blinded interpretations of FDG-PET scan images showed that 31 patients (21%) had signs of metastatic disease, 13 patients had probable regional lymph node metastases, and 18 patients had 23 sites of possible distant metastases. SLNB and/or follow-up demonstrated regional lymph node metastases in 43 of 184 lymph node basins in 40 patients (27.8%). Compared with all clinical information, FDG-PET scan sensitivity for detection of regional lymph node metastases was 0.21 (95% confidence [CI], 0.10-0.36) and specificity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.93-0.99). No distant sites were confirmed to be true positive by targeted conventional imaging/biopsy at the time of presentation. Thirty-four patients (23.6%) presented with 54 foci of metastatic disease at initial disease recurrence. FDG-PET scan sensitivity for prediction of the first site(s) of clinical disease recurrence was 0.11 (95% CI, 0.04-0.23). Excluding patients with brain metastases, FDG-PET scan sensitivity for detection of occult Stage IV disease in patients was 0.04 (95% CI, 0.001-0.20) and specificity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.92).
CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET scanning did not impact the care of patients with early-stage melanoma already staged by standard techniques. Routine FDG-PET scanning was not recommended for the initial staging evaluation in this population. (c) 2005 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15977211     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21189

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  31 in total

Review 1.  Chinese Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Melanoma (2015 Edition).

Authors:  Jun Guo; Shukui Qin; Jun Liang; Tongyu Lin; Lu Si; Xiaohong Chen; Zhihong Chi; Chuanliang Cui; Nan Du; Yun Fan; Kangsheng Gu; Fang Li; Junling Li; Yongheng Li; Houjie Liang; Jiwei Liu; Man Lu; Aiping Lu; Kejun Nan; Xiaohui Niu; Hongming Pan; Guoxin Ren; Xiubao Ren; Yongqian Shu; Xin Song; Min Tao; Baocheng Wang; Wenbin Wei; Di Wu; Lingying Wu; Aiwen Wu; Xiaolin Xu; Junyi Zhang; Xiaoshi Zhang; Yiping Zhang; Huiyan Zhu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2015-12

2.  Direct comparison of [18F]FDG PET/CT with PET alone and with side-by-side PET and CT in patients with malignant melanoma.

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

3.  MR lymphangiography with intradermal gadofosveset and human serum albumin in mice and primates.

Authors:  Takahito Nakajima; Baris Turkbey; Kohei Sano; Kazuhide Sato; Marcelino Bernardo; Robert F Hoyt; Peter L Choyke; Hisataka Kobayashi
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the management of melanoma.

Authors:  A Iagaru; A Quon; D Johnson; S S Gambhir; I R McDougall
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 5.  Peptide-targeted radionuclide therapy for melanoma.

Authors:  Yubin Miao; Thomas P Quinn
Journal:  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 6.312

Review 6.  Occult primary head and neck carcinoma.

Authors:  Cecelia E Schmalbach; Frank R Miller
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.075

7.  Use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with rare head and neck cancers.

Authors:  Jong-Lyel Roh; Byoung Jae Moon; Jae Seung Kim; Jeong Hyun Lee; Kyung-Ja Cho; Seung-Ho Choi; Soon Yuhl Nam; Bong-Jae Lee; Sang Yoon Kim
Journal:  Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-06-20       Impact factor: 3.372

Review 8.  PET/CT in oncology: for which tumours is it the reference standard?

Authors:  Conor D Collins
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 3.909

9.  Meta-analysis of the performance of (18)F-FDG PET in cutaneous melanoma.

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

Review 10.  Staging of cutaneous melanoma.

Authors:  P Mohr; A M M Eggermont; A Hauschild; A Buzaid
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 32.976

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.