Benedikt Michael Schaarschmidt1, Johannes Grueneisen2, Vanessa Stebner3, Joachim Klode4,5,6, Ingo Stoffels4,5,6, Lale Umutlu2, Dirk Schadendorf4,5,6, Philipp Heusch7, Gerald Antoch7, Thorsten Dirk Pöppel3. 1. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Univ Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany. benedikt.schaarschmidt@uk-essen.de. 2. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, Univ Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. Medical Faculty, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Univ Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. West German Cancer Center, University Duisburg-Essen, 45122, Essen, Germany. 6. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 7. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Univ Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT), 18F-FDG PET/magnetic resonance (18F-FDG PET/MR) and 18F-FDG PET/MR including diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in the detection of sentinel lymph node metastases in patients suffering from malignant melanoma. MATERIAL & METHODS: Fifty-two patients with malignant melanoma (female: n = 30, male: n = 22, mean age 50.5 ± 16.0 years, mean tumor thickness 2.28 ± 1.97 mm) who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT and subsequent PET/MR & DWI for distant metastasis staging were included in this retrospective study. After hybrid imaging, lymphoscintigraphy including single photon emission computed tomography/CT (SPECT/CT) was performed to identify the sentinel lymph node prior to sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). In a total of 87 sentinel lymph nodes in 64 lymph node basins visible on SPECT/CT, 17 lymph node metastases were detected by histopathology. In separate sessions PET/CT, PET/MR, and PET/MR & DWI were assessed for sentinel lymph node metastases by two independent readers. Discrepant results were resolved in a consensus reading. Sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values and negative predictive values were calculated with histopathology following SPECT/CT guided SLNB as a reference standard. RESULTS: Compared with histopathology, lymph nodes were true positive in three cases, true negative in 65 cases, false positive in three cases and false negative in 14 cases in PET/CT. PET/MR was true positive in four cases, true negative in 63 cases, false positive in two cases and false negative in 13 cases. Hence, we observed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 17.7, 95.6, 50.0 and 82.3% for PET/CT and 23.5, 96.9, 66.7 and 82.3% for PET/MR. In DWI, 56 sentinel lymph node basins could be analyzed. Here, the additional analysis of DWI led to two additional false positive findings, while the number of true positive findings could not be increased. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR does not reliably differentiate N-positive from N-negative melanoma patients. Additional DWI does not increase the sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET/MR. Hence, sentinel lymph node biopsy cannot be replaced by 18F-FDG-PE/MR or 18F-FDG-PET/CT.
PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT), 18F-FDG PET/magnetic resonance (18F-FDG PET/MR) and 18F-FDG PET/MR including diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in the detection of sentinel lymph node metastases in patients suffering from malignant melanoma. MATERIAL & METHODS: Fifty-two patients with malignant melanoma (female: n = 30, male: n = 22, mean age 50.5 ± 16.0 years, mean tumor thickness 2.28 ± 1.97 mm) who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT and subsequent PET/MR & DWI for distant metastasis staging were included in this retrospective study. After hybrid imaging, lymphoscintigraphy including single photon emission computed tomography/CT (SPECT/CT) was performed to identify the sentinel lymph node prior to sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). In a total of 87 sentinel lymph nodes in 64 lymph node basins visible on SPECT/CT, 17 lymph node metastases were detected by histopathology. In separate sessions PET/CT, PET/MR, and PET/MR & DWI were assessed for sentinel lymph node metastases by two independent readers. Discrepant results were resolved in a consensus reading. Sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values and negative predictive values were calculated with histopathology following SPECT/CT guided SLNB as a reference standard. RESULTS: Compared with histopathology, lymph nodes were true positive in three cases, true negative in 65 cases, false positive in three cases and false negative in 14 cases in PET/CT. PET/MR was true positive in four cases, true negative in 63 cases, false positive in two cases and false negative in 13 cases. Hence, we observed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 17.7, 95.6, 50.0 and 82.3% for PET/CT and 23.5, 96.9, 66.7 and 82.3% for PET/MR. In DWI, 56 sentinel lymph node basins could be analyzed. Here, the additional analysis of DWI led to two additional false positive findings, while the number of true positive findings could not be increased. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR does not reliably differentiate N-positive from N-negative melanomapatients. Additional DWI does not increase the sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET/MR. Hence, sentinel lymph node biopsy cannot be replaced by 18F-FDG-PE/MR or 18F-FDG-PET/CT.
Authors: Annette Pflugfelder; Corinna Kochs; Andreas Blum; Marcus Capellaro; Christina Czeschik; Therese Dettenborn; Dorothee Dill; Edgar Dippel; Thomas Eigentler; Petra Feyer; Markus Follmann; Bernhard Frerich; Maria-Katharina Ganten; Jan Gärtner; Ralf Gutzmer; Jessica Hassel; Axel Hauschild; Peter Hohenberger; Jutta Hübner; Martin Kaatz; Ulrich R Kleeberg; Oliver Kölbl; Rolf-Dieter Kortmann; Albrecht Krause-Bergmann; Peter Kurschat; Ulrike Leiter; Hartmut Link; Carmen Loquai; Christoph Löser; Andreas Mackensen; Friedegund Meier; Peter Mohr; Matthias Möhrle; Dorothee Nashan; Sven Reske; Christian Rose; Christian Sander; Imke Satzger; Meinhard Schiller; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Gerhard Strittmatter; Cord Sunderkötter; Lothar Swoboda; Uwe Trefzer; Raymond Voltz; Dirk Vordermark; Michael Weichenthal; Andreas Werner; Simone Wesselmann; Ansgar J Weyergraf; Wolfgang Wick; Claus Garbe; Dirk Schadendorf Journal: J Dtsch Dermatol Ges Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 5.584
Authors: Ingo Stoffels; Stefan Morscher; Iris Helfrich; Uwe Hillen; Julia Leyh; Julia Lehy; Neal C Burton; Thomas C P Sardella; Jing Claussen; Thorsten D Poeppel; Hagen S Bachmann; Alexander Roesch; Klaus Griewank; Dirk Schadendorf; Matthias Gunzer; Joachim Klode Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Johannes Grueneisen; Karsten Beiderwellen; Philipp Heusch; Paul Buderath; Bahriye Aktas; Marcel Gratz; Michael Forsting; Thomas Lauenstein; Verena Ruhlmann; Lale Umutlu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: M J Wilkinson; H Snow; K Downey; K Thomas; A Riddell; N Francis; D C Strauss; A J Hayes; M J F Smith; C Messiou Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-01-08