PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective, blinded study was to evaluate the additional value of [18F]FDG PET/CT in comparison with PET alone and with side-by-side PET and CT in patients with malignant melanoma (MM). METHODS: A total of 127 consecutive studies of patients with known MM referred for a whole-body PET/CT examination were included in this study. PET alone, side-by-side PET and CT and integrated PET/CT study were independently and separately interpreted without awareness of the clinical information. One score each was applied for certainty of lesion localisation and for certainty of lesion characterisation. Verification of the findings was subsequently performed using all available clinical, pathological (n=30) and follow-up information. RESULTS: The number of lesions with an uncertain localisation was significantly (p<0.001) reduced by PET/CT and side-by-side PET and CT (p<0.05) in comparison with PET alone. In line with this increase in certainty integrated PET/CT reading also improved certainty in characterisation of lesions, however, this did not reach significance (p=0.057) compared versus PET alone. Respectively, PET, side-by-side PET and CT and PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 86%, 89% and 91%, a specificity of 94%, 94% and 94%, a positive predictive value of 96%, 96% and 96% and a negative predictive value of 80%, 83% and 87%. CONCLUSION: Integrated PET/CT offers a significant benefit in lesion localisation and an improvement in lesion characterisation compared with PET alone or with side-by-side PET and CT. The benefit is not as great as that reported for other tumour entities, which may be due to the high avidity of MM for [18F]FDG.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective, blinded study was to evaluate the additional value of [18F]FDG PET/CT in comparison with PET alone and with side-by-side PET and CT in patients with malignant melanoma (MM). METHODS: A total of 127 consecutive studies of patients with known MM referred for a whole-body PET/CT examination were included in this study. PET alone, side-by-side PET and CT and integrated PET/CT study were independently and separately interpreted without awareness of the clinical information. One score each was applied for certainty of lesion localisation and for certainty of lesion characterisation. Verification of the findings was subsequently performed using all available clinical, pathological (n=30) and follow-up information. RESULTS: The number of lesions with an uncertain localisation was significantly (p<0.001) reduced by PET/CT and side-by-side PET and CT (p<0.05) in comparison with PET alone. In line with this increase in certainty integrated PET/CT reading also improved certainty in characterisation of lesions, however, this did not reach significance (p=0.057) compared versus PET alone. Respectively, PET, side-by-side PET and CT and PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 86%, 89% and 91%, a specificity of 94%, 94% and 94%, a positive predictive value of 96%, 96% and 96% and a negative predictive value of 80%, 83% and 87%. CONCLUSION: Integrated PET/CT offers a significant benefit in lesion localisation and an improvement in lesion characterisation compared with PET alone or with side-by-side PET and CT. The benefit is not as great as that reported for other tumour entities, which may be due to the high avidity of MM for [18F]FDG.
Authors: A Eigtved; A P Andersson; K Dahlstrøm; A Rabøl; M Jensen; S Holm; S S Sørensen; K T Drzewiecki; L Højgaard; L Friberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 2000-01
Authors: T F Wood; L A DiFronzo; D M Rose; P I Haigh; S L Stern; L Wanek; R Essner; D L Morton Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: G S Mijnhout; O S Hoekstra; A van Lingen; P J van Diest; H J Adèr; A A Lammertsma; R Pijpers; S Meijer; G J J Teule Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: C Burger; G Goerres; S Schoenes; A Buck; A H R Lonn; G K Von Schulthess Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-04-19 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Thomas Pfluger; Henriette Ingrid Melzer; Vera Schneider; Christian La Fougere; Eva Coppenrath; Carola Berking; Peter Bartenstein; Mayo Weiss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jacob Sosna; Steven J Esses; Nikolay Yeframov; Hanna Bernstine; Tamar Sella; Shifra Fraifeld; Jonathan B Kruskal; David Groshar Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Markus Essler; Anna Link; Benedetta Belloni; Vesna Mirceva; Michael Souvatzoglou; Markus Thaler; Bernhard Haller; Ruediger Hein; Bernd J Krause Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 3.240
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