Literature DB >> 23824464

A prospective analysis of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in patients with uveal melanoma: comparison between metabolic rate of glucose (MRglu) and standardized uptake value (SUV) and correlations with histopathological features.

Maria Lucia Calcagni1, Maria Vittoria Mattoli, Maria Antonietta Blasi, Gianluigi Petrone, Maria Grazia Sammarco, Luca Indovina, Antonino Mulè, Vittoria Rufini, Alessandro Giordano.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether standardized uptake value (SUV) and/or metabolic rate of glucose (MRglu) are different among epithelioid, mixed, and spindle cell uveal melanomas, as well as between low and high risk melanomas; to correlate ultrasonographic data and metabolic parameters with histopathological features; and to assess the role of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for evaluating prognosis.
METHODS: Of 34 eligible patients prospectively enrolled with clinical suspicion of medium/large uveal melanoma, 26 (15 men, mean age 62.8 ± 11.8 years) were evaluated. All patients underwent metastatic work-up, 3-D dynamic brain and whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT, and surgery.
RESULTS: Of the 26 ocular lesions, 23 showed (18)F-FDG uptake, with a sensitivity of 88 %. MRglu was significantly higher in the epithelioid cell melanomas than in the spindle cell melanomas, as well as in high-risk lesions than in low-risk lesions (p = 0.01, p = 0.02, respectively). SUV and MRglu were correlated with histopathological features while ultrasonographic data were not.
CONCLUSION: MRglu is useful for distinguishing the different cell types in uveal melanoma, as well as high-risk from low-risk lesions, while SUV is not. MRglu provides a more accurate evaluation of glucose consumption, whereas SUV provides only an estimation. In addition, the metabolic parameters correlate with histopathological features, well also reflecting cellular behaviour in ocular malignancy. A longer follow-up is needed to assess the role of (18)F-FDG in evaluating prognosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23824464     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2488-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  36 in total

1.  Reassessment of the PAS patterns in uveal melanoma.

Authors:  A J Foss; R A Alexander; J L Hungerford; A L Harris; I A Cree; S Lightman
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.638

2.  Visualization of primary uveal melanoma with PET/CT scan.

Authors:  A D Singh; P Bhatnagar; B Bybel
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2005-08-05       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  The utility of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of carcinoid tumors presenting as pulmonary nodules.

Authors:  Craig E Daniels; Val J Lowe; Marie-Christine Aubry; Mark S Allen; James R Jett
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 4.  Clinical and Research Applications of Quantitative PET Imaging.

Authors:  Sandip Basu; Habib Zaidi; Abass Alavi
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2008-02-15

5.  [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) physiologic imaging of choroidal melanoma: before and after ophthalmic plaque radiation therapy.

Authors:  Paul T Finger; Kimberly J Chin
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Liver function testing is not helpful for early diagnosis of metastatic uveal melanoma.

Authors:  Frédéric Mouriaux; Caroline Diorio; Dan Bergeron; Célia Berchi; Alain Rousseau
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Metastasis of uveal melanoma millimeter-by-millimeter in 8033 consecutive eyes.

Authors:  Carol L Shields; Minoru Furuta; Archana Thangappan; Saya Nagori; Arman Mashayekhi; David R Lally; Cecilia C Kelly; Danielle S Rudich; Anand V Nagori; Oojwala A Wakade; Sonul Mehta; Lauren Forte; Andrew Long; Elaina F Dellacava; Bonnie Kaplan; Jerry A Shields
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-08

8.  KI-67 immunopositivity in choroidal and ciliary body melanoma with respect to nucleolar diameter and other prognostic factors.

Authors:  Rana'a T Al-Jamal; Tero Kivelä
Journal:  Curr Eye Res       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.424

9.  Standardized uptake values of FDG: body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction.

Authors:  C K Kim; N C Gupta; B Chandramouli; A Alavi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  The relationship between combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography and clinical and light microscopic findings in choroidal melanoma.

Authors:  Lisa J Faia; Jose S Pulido; Mark J Donaldson; Diva R Salomão; J Douglas Cameron; Brian Mullan; Kaan Gunduz
Journal:  Retina       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.256

View more
  5 in total

1.  Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) in the Evaluation of Ophthalmic Tumors.

Authors:  Ping Jiang; Shan-Shan Liao; Xiao-Li Lan; Fa-Gang Jiang
Journal:  Curr Med Sci       Date:  2018-04-30

Review 2.  Imaging Techniques in the Diagnosis and Management of Ocular Tumors: Prospects and Challenges.

Authors:  Rabin Neupane; Ripal Gaudana; Sai H S Boddu
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  The predictive value of 18F-FDG PET-CT for assessing the clinical outcomes in locally advanced NSCLC patients after a new induction treatment: low-dose fractionated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy.

Authors:  Maria Vittoria Mattoli; Mariangela Massaccesi; Alessandra Castelluccia; Valentina Scolozzi; Giovanna Mantini; Maria Lucia Calcagni
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 4.  Application of Multimodal and Molecular Imaging Techniques in the Detection of Choroidal Melanomas.

Authors:  Xuying Li; Lixiang Wang; Li Zhang; Fei Tang; Xin Wei
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Metabolic activity of primary uveal melanoma on PET/CT scan and its relationship with monosomy 3 and other prognostic factors.

Authors:  Vasilios P Papastefanou; Shahriar Islam; Teresa Szyszko; Marianne Grantham; Mandeep S Sagoo; Victoria M L Cohen
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 4.638

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.