BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses were performed to examine the utility of ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), and a combination of both (PET-CT) for the staging and surveillance of melanoma patients. METHOD: Patient-level data from 74 studies containing 10,528 patients (between January 1, 1990, and June, 30, 2009) were used to derive characteristics of the diagnostic tests used. Meta-analyses were conducted by use of Bayesian bivariate binomial models to estimate sensitivity and specificity. Diagnostic odds ratios [ie, true-positive results/false-negative results)/(false-positive results/true-negative results)] and their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and positive predictive values were used as indicators of test performance. RESULTS: Among the four imaging methods examined for the staging of regional lymph nodes, ultrasonography had the highest sensitivity (60%, 95% CrI = 33% to 83%), specificity (97%, 95% CrI = 88% to 99%), and diagnostic odds ratio (42, 95% CrI = 8.08 to 249.8). For staging of distant metastases, PET-CT had the highest sensitivity (80%, 95% CrI = 53% to 93%), specificity (87%, 95% CrI = 54% to 97%), and diagnostic odds ratio (25, 95% CrI = 3.58 to 198.7). Similar trends were observed for melanoma surveillance of lymph node involvement, with ultrasonography having the highest sensitivity (96%, 95% CrI = 85% to 99%), specificity (99%, 95% CrI = 95% to 100%), and diagnostic odds ratio (1675, 95% CrI = 226.6 to 15,920). For distant metastases, PET-CT had the highest sensitivity (86%, 95% CrI = 76% to 93%), specificity (91%, 95% CrI = 79% to 97%), and diagnostic odds ratio (67, 95% CrI = 20.42 to 229.7). Positive predictive values were likewise highest for ultrasonography in lymph node staging and for PET-CT in detecting distant metastases. CONCLUSION: Among the compared modalities, ultrasonography was superior for detecting lymph node metastases, and PET-CT was superior for the detection of distant metastases in both the staging and surveillance of melanoma patients.
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses were performed to examine the utility of ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), and a combination of both (PET-CT) for the staging and surveillance of melanomapatients. METHOD:Patient-level data from 74 studies containing 10,528 patients (between January 1, 1990, and June, 30, 2009) were used to derive characteristics of the diagnostic tests used. Meta-analyses were conducted by use of Bayesian bivariate binomial models to estimate sensitivity and specificity. Diagnostic odds ratios [ie, true-positive results/false-negative results)/(false-positive results/true-negative results)] and their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and positive predictive values were used as indicators of test performance. RESULTS: Among the four imaging methods examined for the staging of regional lymph nodes, ultrasonography had the highest sensitivity (60%, 95% CrI = 33% to 83%), specificity (97%, 95% CrI = 88% to 99%), and diagnostic odds ratio (42, 95% CrI = 8.08 to 249.8). For staging of distant metastases, PET-CT had the highest sensitivity (80%, 95% CrI = 53% to 93%), specificity (87%, 95% CrI = 54% to 97%), and diagnostic odds ratio (25, 95% CrI = 3.58 to 198.7). Similar trends were observed for melanoma surveillance of lymph node involvement, with ultrasonography having the highest sensitivity (96%, 95% CrI = 85% to 99%), specificity (99%, 95% CrI = 95% to 100%), and diagnostic odds ratio (1675, 95% CrI = 226.6 to 15,920). For distant metastases, PET-CT had the highest sensitivity (86%, 95% CrI = 76% to 93%), specificity (91%, 95% CrI = 79% to 97%), and diagnostic odds ratio (67, 95% CrI = 20.42 to 229.7). Positive predictive values were likewise highest for ultrasonography in lymph node staging and for PET-CT in detecting distant metastases. CONCLUSION: Among the compared modalities, ultrasonography was superior for detecting lymph node metastases, and PET-CT was superior for the detection of distant metastases in both the staging and surveillance of melanomapatients.
Authors: Rebecca P Petersen; Steven I Hanish; John C Haney; Charles C Miller; William R Burfeind; Douglas S Tyler; Hilliard F Seigler; Walter Wolfe; Thomas A D'Amico; David H Harpole Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: E E Deurloo; P J Tanis; K G A Gilhuijs; S H Muller; R Kröger; J L Peterse; E J Th Rutgers; R Valdés Olmos; L J Schultze Kool Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Christiane A Voit; Alexander C J van Akkooi; Gregor Schäfer-Hesterberg; Alfred Schoengen; Paul I M Schmitz; Wolfram Sterry; Alexander M M Eggermont Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xianglin L Du; Charles R Key; Cynthia Osborne; Jonathan D Mahnken; James S Goodwin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-21 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Susann-Cathrin Schüle; Thomas Kurt Eigentler; Claus Garbe; Christian la Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Pfannenberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 9.236