AIM: To investigate the value of whole body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in screening for metastatic choroidal melanoma in patients initially diagnosed with choroidal melanoma. METHODS: 52 patients with choroidal melanoma underwent whole body PET/CT as part of their metastatic investigation. PET/CT scans were used as a screening tool at the time of their initial diagnosis. A physical examination, liver function tests, and a baseline chest x ray were also obtained. PET/CT images (utilising intravenous18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG)) were studied for the presence of metastatic melanoma. The standards for reference were further imaging and/or subsequent biopsies. RESULTS: Two of 52 (3.8%) patients were found to have metastatic melanoma before treatment. The most common sites for metastases were the liver (100%), bone (50%), and lymph nodes (50%). Brain involvement was also present in one patient. One patient (50%) had involvement of multiple sites. Haematological liver enzyme assays were normal in both patients. PET/CT showed false positive results in three patients (5.7%) when further evaluated by histopathology and/or additional imaging. In seven patients (13.4%) PET/CT imaging detected benign lesions in the bone, lung, lymph nodes, colon, and rectum. CONCLUSION: PET/CT imaging can be used as a screening tool for the detection and localisation of metastatic choroidal melanoma. Liver enzyme assays did not identify liver metastases, while PET/CT revealed both hepatic and extrahepatic metastatic melanoma. PET/CT imaging may improve upon the conventional methods of screening for detection of metastatic disease in patients initially diagnosed with choroidal melanoma.
AIM: To investigate the value of whole body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in screening for metastatic choroidal melanoma in patients initially diagnosed with choroidal melanoma. METHODS: 52 patients with choroidal melanoma underwent whole body PET/CT as part of their metastatic investigation. PET/CT scans were used as a screening tool at the time of their initial diagnosis. A physical examination, liver function tests, and a baseline chest x ray were also obtained. PET/CT images (utilising intravenous18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG)) were studied for the presence of metastatic melanoma. The standards for reference were further imaging and/or subsequent biopsies. RESULTS: Two of 52 (3.8%) patients were found to have metastatic melanoma before treatment. The most common sites for metastases were the liver (100%), bone (50%), and lymph nodes (50%). Brain involvement was also present in one patient. One patient (50%) had involvement of multiple sites. Haematological liver enzyme assays were normal in both patients. PET/CT showed false positive results in three patients (5.7%) when further evaluated by histopathology and/or additional imaging. In seven patients (13.4%) PET/CT imaging detected benign lesions in the bone, lung, lymph nodes, colon, and rectum. CONCLUSION: PET/CT imaging can be used as a screening tool for the detection and localisation of metastatic choroidal melanoma. Liver enzyme assays did not identify liver metastases, while PET/CT revealed both hepatic and extrahepatic metastatic melanoma. PET/CT imaging may improve upon the conventional methods of screening for detection of metastatic disease in patients initially diagnosed with choroidal melanoma.
Authors: L S Freudenberg; A O Schueler; T Beyer; G Antoch; H Kühl; N Bornfeld; A Bockisch; T Egelhof Journal: Surv Ophthalmol Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.048
Authors: Marie Diener-West; Sandra M Reynolds; Donna J Agugliaro; Robert Caldwell; Kristi Cumming; John D Earle; Donna L Green; Barbara S Hawkins; James Hayman; Ishmael Jaiyesimi; John M Kirkwood; Wui-Jin Koh; Dennis M Robertson; John M Shaw; Jonni Thoma Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Florian M Vogt; Lutz S Freudenberg; Fridun Nazaradeh; Susanne C Goehde; Jörg Barkhausen; Gerlinde Dahmen; Andreas Bockisch; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hasan Danish; Matthew J Ferris; Ehsan Balagamwala; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Kirtesh R Patel; Maria Choudhary; Caroline Craven; Pia Mendoza; John Suh; Chris Bergstrom; Hans E Grossniklaus; Thomas M Aaberg; Arun Singh; Ian R Crocker; Mohammad K Khan Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Solange Landreville; Olga A Agapova; Katie A Matatall; Zachary T Kneass; Michael D Onken; Ryan S Lee; Anne M Bowcock; J William Harbour Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: K Strobel; B Bode; R Dummer; P Veit-Haibach; D R Fischer; L Imhof; S Goldinger; Hans C Steinert; G K von Schulthess Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-06-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Chandrani Chattopadhyay; Dae Won Kim; Dan S Gombos; Junna Oba; Yong Qin; Michelle D Williams; Bita Esmaeli; Elizabeth A Grimm; Jennifer A Wargo; Scott E Woodman; Sapna P Patel Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860