PURPOSE: Patients with melanoma with potentially resectable lymph node metastases require accurate staging to prevent unnecessary surgery. [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is attractive for this because melanoma typically is FDG avid. The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to perform a head-to-head comparison of FDG-PET and computed tomography (CT) in staging of patients with melanoma with palpable lymph node metastases in terms of diagnostic accuracy and impact on treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients with palpable, proven lymph node metastases of melanoma between mid 2003 and 2007 were prospectively included. The number/site of distant metastases detected with FDG-PET and CT were recorded. Histology/cytology or 6 months follow-up were the reference standard. Intended and performed treatment was recorded. RESULTS: Distant metastases were suspected by FDG-PET in 32% of the 251 patients and by CT in 29% (P = .26). Upstaging was correct in 27% by FDG-PET and in 24% by CT (P = .18). FDG-PET detected more metastatic sites (133 v 112, P = .03), detecting significantly more bone and subcutaneous metastases. Treatment changed in 19% of patients; in 79% as a result of both scans, in 17% exclusively by FDG-PET, and in 4% exclusively by CT. In 34 patients (14%), FDG-PET had an additional value over spiral CT, and in 23 patients (9%), CT had additional value over FDG-PET. CONCLUSION: As a result of FDG-PET and CT, 27% of patients were upstaged, and treatment changed in one of five patients. FDG-PET and CT are equivalent in upstaging; however, FDG-PET detected more metastatic sites, especially bone and subcutaneous. FDG-PET and/or CT are indicated in the staging of patients with melanoma with palpable lymph node metastases.
PURPOSE:Patients with melanoma with potentially resectable lymph node metastases require accurate staging to prevent unnecessary surgery. [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is attractive for this because melanoma typically is FDG avid. The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to perform a head-to-head comparison of FDG-PET and computed tomography (CT) in staging of patients with melanoma with palpable lymph node metastases in terms of diagnostic accuracy and impact on treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients with palpable, proven lymph node metastases of melanoma between mid 2003 and 2007 were prospectively included. The number/site of distant metastases detected with FDG-PET and CT were recorded. Histology/cytology or 6 months follow-up were the reference standard. Intended and performed treatment was recorded. RESULTS: Distant metastases were suspected by FDG-PET in 32% of the 251 patients and by CT in 29% (P = .26). Upstaging was correct in 27% by FDG-PET and in 24% by CT (P = .18). FDG-PET detected more metastatic sites (133 v 112, P = .03), detecting significantly more bone and subcutaneous metastases. Treatment changed in 19% of patients; in 79% as a result of both scans, in 17% exclusively by FDG-PET, and in 4% exclusively by CT. In 34 patients (14%), FDG-PET had an additional value over spiral CT, and in 23 patients (9%), CT had additional value over FDG-PET. CONCLUSION: As a result of FDG-PET and CT, 27% of patients were upstaged, and treatment changed in one of five patients. FDG-PET and CT are equivalent in upstaging; however, FDG-PET detected more metastatic sites, especially bone and subcutaneous. FDG-PET and/or CT are indicated in the staging of patients with melanoma with palpable lymph node metastases.
Authors: Nathan Andrew Rohner; Jacob McClain; Sara Lydia Tuell; Alex Warner; Blair Smith; Youngho Yun; Abhinav Mohan; Manuela Sushnitha; Susan Napier Thomas Journal: FASEB J Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Andrea Forschner; Susann-Cathrin Olthof; Brigitte Gückel; Peter Martus; Werner Vach; Christian la Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Ulrike Keim; Thomas Kurt Eigentler; Claus Garbe; Christina Pfannenberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bernd Klaeser; Jakub Wiskirchen; Jan Wartenberg; Thilo Weitzel; Ralph A Schmid; Michel D Mueller; Thomas Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Maria Danielsen; Andreas Kjaer; Max Wu; Lea Martineau; Mehdi Nosrati; Stanley Pl Leong; Richard W Sagebiel; James R Miller; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-09-22
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