Angel M Rodriguez Rivera1, Haytham Alabbas2, Aliya Ramjaun3, Ari-Nareg Meguerditchian4. 1. Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Clinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Clinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 4. Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Clinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. Electronic address: ari.meguerditchian@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to review the collective experience and utility of FDG-PET scans (FDG-PET) in the detection of systemic metastases in patients with stage III melanoma. METHODS: A systematic search for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2012 was performed. We included English language studies that evaluated melanoma patients with stage III disease, with at least 10 patients per study, and collected statistical data to assess FDG-PET utility in the detection of distant metastases. The SIGN tool was used to evaluate methodological quality and a meta-analysis was performed using Stata statistical software to quantify the clinical utility of FDG-PET. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 9 studies eligible for inclusion in quantitative analyses with a total of 623 patients. The overall sensitivity of FDG-PET in detecting systemic metastases was 89.42% (95% CI: 65.07-97.46), and specificity was 88.78% (95% CI: 77.04-94.91). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 7.97 (95% CI: 3.58-17.71) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.03-0.47). The area under the summary receiver operating curve (SROC) was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 66.84 (95% CI: 10.66-418.89). A change in stage and/or management was noted in 22% (126/573) of patients when FDG-PET was utilized. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that FDG-PET may be useful in detecting distant metastases in patients with stage III melanoma. For this highly selected group of patients, FDG-PET has a high sensitivity, specificity and performance, frequently leading to a change in treatment plan.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to review the collective experience and utility of FDG-PET scans (FDG-PET) in the detection of systemic metastases in patients with stage III melanoma. METHODS: A systematic search for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2012 was performed. We included English language studies that evaluated melanomapatients with stage III disease, with at least 10 patients per study, and collected statistical data to assess FDG-PET utility in the detection of distant metastases. The SIGN tool was used to evaluate methodological quality and a meta-analysis was performed using Stata statistical software to quantify the clinical utility of FDG-PET. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 9 studies eligible for inclusion in quantitative analyses with a total of 623 patients. The overall sensitivity of FDG-PET in detecting systemic metastases was 89.42% (95% CI: 65.07-97.46), and specificity was 88.78% (95% CI: 77.04-94.91). The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 7.97 (95% CI: 3.58-17.71) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.03-0.47). The area under the summary receiver operating curve (SROC) was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 66.84 (95% CI: 10.66-418.89). A change in stage and/or management was noted in 22% (126/573) of patients when FDG-PET was utilized. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that FDG-PET may be useful in detecting distant metastases in patients with stage III melanoma. For this highly selected group of patients, FDG-PET has a high sensitivity, specificity and performance, frequently leading to a change in treatment plan.
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: Hadeel Halalsheh; Sue C Kaste; Fariba Navid; Armita Bahrami; Barry L Shulkin; Bhaskar Rao; Michelle Kunkel; Nathan Artz; Alberto Pappo Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2018-08-19 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Mark William Linder; Michael E Egger; Tracy Van Meter; Shesh N Rai; Roland Valdes; Melissa Barousse Hall; Xiaoyong Wu; Norah Alghamdi; Jason A Chesney Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 4.074
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: István Kertész; András Vida; Gábor Nagy; Miklós Emri; Antal Farkas; Adrienn Kis; János Angyal; Noémi Dénes; Judit P Szabó; Tünde Kovács; Péter Bai; György Trencsényi Journal: J Cancer Date: 2017-02-25 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Mbathio Dieng; Nikita Khanna; Mai Thi Hoang Nguyen; Robin Turner; Sarah J Lord; Alexander M Menzies; Jay Allen; Robyn Saw; Omgo E Nieweg; John Thompson; Rachael L Morton Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 2.692