OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to determine how often unexpected (18)F-FDG PET/CT findings result in a change in management for patients with stage IV and clinically evident stage III melanoma with resectable disease according to conventional imaging. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with oligometastatic stage IV and clinically evident stage III melanoma were identified by surgical oncologists according to the results of conventional imaging, which included contrast-enhanced CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis and MRI of the brain. The surgical plan included resection of known metastases or isolated limb perfusion with chemotherapy. Thirty-three FDG PET/CT scans were performed within 36 days of their contrast-enhanced CT. The impact of PET/CT was defined as the percentage of cases in which a change in the surgical plan resulted from the unanticipated PET/CT findings. RESULTS: PET/CT revealed unexpected melanoma metastases in 12% of scans (4/33). As a result, the surgery was canceled for two patients, and the planned approach was altered for another two patients to address the unexpected sites. In 6% of scans (2/33), the unexpected metastases were detected in the extremities, which were not included in conventional imaging. Three scans (9%) showed false-positive FDG-avid findings that proved to be benign by subsequent stability or resolution with no therapy. CONCLUSION: In patients with surgically treatable metastatic melanoma, FDG PET/CT can detect unexpected metastases that are missed or not imaged with conventional imaging, and can be considered as part of preoperative workup.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to determine how often unexpected (18)F-FDG PET/CT findings result in a change in management for patients with stage IV and clinically evident stage III melanoma with resectable disease according to conventional imaging. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with oligometastatic stage IV and clinically evident stage III melanoma were identified by surgical oncologists according to the results of conventional imaging, which included contrast-enhanced CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis and MRI of the brain. The surgical plan included resection of known metastases or isolated limb perfusion with chemotherapy. Thirty-three FDG PET/CT scans were performed within 36 days of their contrast-enhanced CT. The impact of PET/CT was defined as the percentage of cases in which a change in the surgical plan resulted from the unanticipated PET/CT findings. RESULTS: PET/CT revealed unexpected melanoma metastases in 12% of scans (4/33). As a result, the surgery was canceled for two patients, and the planned approach was altered for another two patients to address the unexpected sites. In 6% of scans (2/33), the unexpected metastases were detected in the extremities, which were not included in conventional imaging. Three scans (9%) showed false-positive FDG-avid findings that proved to be benign by subsequent stability or resolution with no therapy. CONCLUSION: In patients with surgically treatable metastatic melanoma, FDG PET/CT can detect unexpected metastases that are missed or not imaged with conventional imaging, and can be considered as part of preoperative workup.
Authors: Michael J Reinhardt; Alexius Y Joe; Ursula Jaeger; Andrea Huber; Alexander Matthies; Jan Bucerius; Roland Roedel; Holger Strunk; Thomas Bieber; Hans-Juergen Biersack; Thomas Tüting Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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: D S Tyler; M Onaitis; A Kherani; A Hata; E Nicholson; M Keogan; S Fisher; E Coleman; H F Seigler Journal: Cancer Date: 2000-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: G S Mijnhout; E F I Comans; P Raijmakers; O S Hoekstra; G J J Teule; M Boers; G C De Gast; H J Adèr Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Seza A Gulec; Mark B Faries; Chris C Lee; Daniel Kirgan; C Glass; Donald L Morton; Richard Essner Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Edward P Miranda; Michael Gertner; James Wall; Elizabeth Grace; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; Robert Allen; Stanley P L Leong Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2004-08
Authors: Klaus Strobel; Reinhard Dummer; Daniela B Husarik; Marisol Pérez Lago; Thomas F Hany; Hans C Steinert Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mary S Brady; Timothy Akhurst; Kathryn Spanknebel; Susan Hilton; Mithat Gonen; Ami Patel; Steven Larson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Alexandre Doussot; Charlée Nardin; Haruyuki Takaki; Tess D Litchman; Michael I D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Michael A Postow; Joseph P Erinjeri; T Peter Kingham Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 3.454
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
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: Lodewijka H J Holtkamp; Annette H Chakera; Sebastian Fung; Jonathan R Stretch; Robyn P M Saw; Kenneth Lee; Sydney Ch'ng; Maria Gonzalez; John F Thompson; Louise Emmett; Omgo E Nieweg Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.199