PURPOSE: To evaluate the usefulness of PET/CT in melanoma patients with an elevated serum S-100B tumour marker level. METHODS: Out of 165 consecutive high-risk melanoma patients referred for PET/CT imaging, 47 had elevated (>0.2 microg/l) S-100B serum levels and a contemporaneous 18F-FDG PET/CT scan. PET/CT scans were evaluated for the presence of metastases. To produce a composite reference standard, we used cytological, histological, MRI and PET/CT follow-up findings as well as clinical and S-100B follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 47 patients with increased S-100B levels, PET/CT correctly identified metastases in 38 (30 distant metastases and eight lymph node metastases). In one patient with cervical lymph node metastases, PET/CT was negative. Eight patients had no metastases and PET/CT correctly excluded metastases in all of them. Overall sensitivity for metastases was 97% (38/39), specificity 100% (8/8) and accuracy 98% (46/47). S-100B was significantly higher in patients with distant metastases (mean 1.93 microg/l, range 0.3-14.3 microg/l) than in patients with lymph node metastases (mean 0.49 microg/l, range 0.3-1.6 microg/l, p=0.003) or patients without metastases (mean 0.625 microg/l, range 0.3-2.6 microg/l, p=0.007). However, 6 of 14 patients with a tumour marker level of 0.3 microg/l had no metastases. CONCLUSION: In melanoma patients with elevated S-100B tumour marker levels, FDG-PET/CT accurately identifies lymph node or distant metastases and reliably excludes metastases. Because of the significant number of false positive S-100B tumour marker determinations (17%), we recommend repetition of tumour marker measurements if elevated S-100B levels occur before extensive imaging is used.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the usefulness of PET/CT in melanomapatients with an elevated serum S-100B tumour marker level. METHODS: Out of 165 consecutive high-risk melanomapatients referred for PET/CT imaging, 47 had elevated (>0.2 microg/l) S-100B serum levels and a contemporaneous 18F-FDG PET/CT scan. PET/CT scans were evaluated for the presence of metastases. To produce a composite reference standard, we used cytological, histological, MRI and PET/CT follow-up findings as well as clinical and S-100B follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 47 patients with increased S-100B levels, PET/CT correctly identified metastases in 38 (30 distant metastases and eight lymph node metastases). In one patient with cervical lymph node metastases, PET/CT was negative. Eight patients had no metastases and PET/CT correctly excluded metastases in all of them. Overall sensitivity for metastases was 97% (38/39), specificity 100% (8/8) and accuracy 98% (46/47). S-100B was significantly higher in patients with distant metastases (mean 1.93 microg/l, range 0.3-14.3 microg/l) than in patients with lymph node metastases (mean 0.49 microg/l, range 0.3-1.6 microg/l, p=0.003) or patients without metastases (mean 0.625 microg/l, range 0.3-2.6 microg/l, p=0.007). However, 6 of 14 patients with a tumour marker level of 0.3 microg/l had no metastases. CONCLUSION: In melanomapatients with elevated S-100B tumour marker levels, FDG-PET/CT accurately identifies lymph node or distant metastases and reliably excludes metastases. Because of the significant number of false positive S-100B tumour marker determinations (17%), we recommend repetition of tumour marker measurements if elevated S-100B levels occur before extensive imaging is used.
Authors: K M Acland; C Healy; E Calonje; M O'Doherty; T Nunan; C Page; E Higgins; R Russell-Jones Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard A Morgan; Mark E Dudley; John R Wunderlich; Marybeth S Hughes; James C Yang; Richard M Sherry; Richard E Royal; Suzanne L Topalian; Udai S Kammula; Nicholas P Restifo; Zhili Zheng; Azam Nahvi; Christiaan R de Vries; Linda J Rogers-Freezer; Sharon A Mavroukakis; Steven A Rosenberg Journal: Science Date: 2006-08-31 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: J Domingo-Domènech; R Molina; T Castel; C Montagut; S Puig; C Conill; R Martí; M Vera; J M Auge; J Malvehy; J J Grau; P Gascon; B Mellado Journal: Oncology Date: 2005-07-11 Impact factor: 2.935
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: Klaus Strobel; Reinhard Dummer; Hans C Steinert; Katrin Baumann Conzett; Karin Schad; Marisol Pérez Lago; Jan D Soyka; P Veit-Haibach; Burkhardt Seifert; V Kalff Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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
Authors: Ryan C Turner; Brandon Lucke-Wold; Noelle Lucke-Wold; Alisa S Elliott; Aric F Logsdon; Charles L Rosen; Jason D Huber Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Ryan G Gamble; Daniel Jensen; Andrea L Suarez; Anne H Hanson; Lauren McLaughlin; Jodi Duke; Robert P Dellavalle Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2010-06-07 Impact factor: 6.639