PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) versus non-enhanced low-dose CT (NECT) in the staging of advanced malignant melanoma with (18)F-fluordeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT. METHODS: In total, 50 (18)F-FDG PET/CT examinations were performed in 50 patients with metastasized melanoma. For attenuation correction, whole-body NECT was performed followed by diagnostic CECT with contrast agent. For the whole-body PET, (18)F-FDG was applied. Criteria for evaluation were signs of vital tumour tissue (extent of lesions, contrast enhancement, maximum standardized uptake value >2.5). Findings suspicious for melanoma were considered lesions. NECT, CECT and (18)F-FDG PET were evaluated separately, followed by combined analysis of PET/NECT and PET/CECT. Findings were verified histologically and/or by follow-up (>6 months). RESULTS: Overall, 232 lesions were analysed, and 151 proved to be metastases. The sensitivity of NECT, CECT, PET, PET/NECT and PET/CECT was 62, 85, 90, 97 and 100%, and specificity was 52, 63, 88, 93 and 93%, respectively. Compared to CECT, NECT obtained additional false-negative results: lymph node (n = 19) and liver/spleen metastases (n = 9). Misinterpreted physiological structures mainly caused additional false-positive findings (n = 17). In combined analysis of PET/NECT, six false-positive [other tumours (n = 2), inflammatory lymph nodes (n = 2), inflammatory lung lesion (n = 1), blood vessel (n = 1)] and five false-negative findings [liver (n = 3), spleen (n = 1), lymph node metastases (n = 1)] remained. On PET/CECT, six false-positive [inflammatory lymph nodes (n = 3), other tumours (n = 2), inflammatory lung lesion (n = 1)] and no false-negative findings occurred. However, additional false findings on PET/NECT (6 of 232) did not change staging compared to PET/CECT. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that it is justified to perform PET/NECT instead of PET/CECT for melanoma staging.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) versus non-enhanced low-dose CT (NECT) in the staging of advanced malignant melanoma with (18)F-fluordeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT. METHODS: In total, 50 (18)F-FDG PET/CT examinations were performed in 50 patients with metastasized melanoma. For attenuation correction, whole-body NECT was performed followed by diagnostic CECT with contrast agent. For the whole-body PET, (18)F-FDG was applied. Criteria for evaluation were signs of vital tumour tissue (extent of lesions, contrast enhancement, maximum standardized uptake value >2.5). Findings suspicious for melanoma were considered lesions. NECT, CECT and (18)F-FDG PET were evaluated separately, followed by combined analysis of PET/NECT and PET/CECT. Findings were verified histologically and/or by follow-up (>6 months). RESULTS: Overall, 232 lesions were analysed, and 151 proved to be metastases. The sensitivity of NECT, CECT, PET, PET/NECT and PET/CECT was 62, 85, 90, 97 and 100%, and specificity was 52, 63, 88, 93 and 93%, respectively. Compared to CECT, NECT obtained additional false-negative results: lymph node (n = 19) and liver/spleen metastases (n = 9). Misinterpreted physiological structures mainly caused additional false-positive findings (n = 17). In combined analysis of PET/NECT, six false-positive [other tumours (n = 2), inflammatory lymph nodes (n = 2), inflammatory lung lesion (n = 1), blood vessel (n = 1)] and five false-negative findings [liver (n = 3), spleen (n = 1), lymph node metastases (n = 1)] remained. On PET/CECT, six false-positive [inflammatory lymph nodes (n = 3), other tumours (n = 2), inflammatory lung lesion (n = 1)] and no false-negative findings occurred. However, additional false findings on PET/NECT (6 of 232) did not change staging compared to PET/CECT. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that it is justified to perform PET/NECT instead of PET/CECT for melanoma staging.
Authors: Anna C Pfannenberg; Philip Aschoff; Klaus Brechtel; Mark Müller; Roland Bares; Frank Paulsen; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Godehard Friedel; Claus D Claussen; Susanne M Eschmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Felisa Jiménez-Requena; Roberto C Delgado-Bolton; Cristina Fernández-Pérez; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Judy Schwimmer; José M Pérez-Vázquez; José L Carreras-Delgado Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Paul Flechsig; Christina Walker; Clemens Kratochwil; Laila König; Andrei Iagura; Jan Moltz; Tim Holland-Letz; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Daniel C Bortot; Bárbara J Amorim; Glaucia C Oki; Sérgio B Gapski; Allan O Santos; Mariana C L Lima; Elba C S C Etchebehere; Marycel F Barboza; Jair Mengatti; Celso Dario Ramos Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 9.236
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: So Ri Kim; Ha-Yong Yoon; Gong Yong Jin; Yeong Hun Choe; Seung Yong Park; Yong Chul Lee Journal: Thorac Cancer Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 3.500