Literature DB >> 31260100

Ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for staging and re-staging of adults with cutaneous melanoma.

Jacqueline Dinnes1, 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.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is one of the most aggressive forms of skin cancer, with the potential to metastasise to other parts of the body via the lymphatic system and the bloodstream. Melanoma accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Various imaging tests can be used with the aim of detecting metastatic spread of disease following a primary diagnosis of melanoma (primary staging) or on clinical suspicion of disease recurrence (re-staging). Accurate staging is crucial to ensuring that patients are directed to the most appropriate and effective treatment at different points on the clinical pathway. Establishing the comparative accuracy of ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT imaging for detection of nodal or distant metastases, or both, is critical to understanding if, how, and where on the pathway these tests might be used.
OBJECTIVES: Primary objectivesWe estimated accuracy separately according to the point in the clinical pathway at which imaging tests were used. Our objectives were:• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound or PET-CT for detection of nodal metastases before sentinel lymph node biopsy in adults with confirmed cutaneous invasive melanoma; and• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for whole body imaging in adults with cutaneous invasive melanoma:○ for detection of any metastasis in adults with a primary diagnosis of melanoma (i.e. primary staging at presentation); and○ for detection of any metastasis in adults undergoing staging of recurrence of melanoma (i.e. re-staging prompted by findings on routine follow-up).We undertook separate analyses according to whether accuracy data were reported per patient or per lesion.Secondary objectivesWe sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for whole body imaging (detection of any metastasis) in mixed or not clearly described populations of adults with cutaneous invasive melanoma.For study participants undergoing primary staging or re-staging (for possible recurrence), and for mixed or unclear populations, our objectives were:• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for detection of nodal metastases;• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for detection of distant metastases; and• to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET-CT for detection of distant metastases according to metastatic site. SEARCH
METHODS: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of any design that evaluated ultrasound (with or without the use of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC)), CT, MRI, or PET-CT for staging of cutaneous melanoma in adults, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or imaging with clinical follow-up of at least three months' duration. We excluded studies reporting multiple applications of the same test in more than 10% of study participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2)). We estimated accuracy using the bivariate hierarchical method to produce summary sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence and prediction regions. We undertook analysis of studies allowing direct and indirect comparison between tests. We examined heterogeneity between studies by visually inspecting the forest plots of sensitivity and specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots. Numbers of identified studies were insufficient to allow formal investigation of potential sources of heterogeneity. MAIN
RESULTS: We included a total of 39 publications reporting on 5204 study participants; 34 studies reporting data per patient included 4980 study participants with 1265 cases of metastatic disease, and seven studies reporting data per lesion included 417 study participants with 1846 potentially metastatic lesions, 1061 of which were confirmed metastases. The risk of bias was low or unclear for all domains apart from participant flow. Concerns regarding applicability of the evidence were high or unclear for almost all domains. Participant selection from mixed or not clearly defined populations and poorly described application and interpretation of index tests were particularly problematic.The accuracy of imaging for detection of regional nodal metastases before sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was evaluated in 18 studies. In 11 studies (2614 participants; 542 cases), the summary sensitivity of ultrasound alone was 35.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0% to 59.4%) and specificity was 93.9% (95% CI 86.1% to 97.5%). Combining pre-SLNB ultrasound with FNAC revealed summary sensitivity of 18.0% (95% CI 3.58% to 56.5%) and specificity of 99.8% (95% CI 99.1% to 99.9%) (1164 participants; 259 cases). Four studies demonstrated lower sensitivity (10.2%, 95% CI 4.31% to 22.3%) and specificity (96.5%,95% CI 87.1% to 99.1%) for PET-CT before SLNB (170 participants, 49 cases). When these data are translated to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people eligible for SLNB, 237 of whom have nodal metastases (median prevalence), the combination of ultrasound with FNAC potentially allows 43 people with nodal metastases to be triaged directly to adjuvant therapy rather than having SLNB first, at a cost of two people with false positive results (who are incorrectly managed). Those with a false negative ultrasound will be identified on subsequent SLNB.Limited test accuracy data were available for whole body imaging via PET-CT for primary staging or re-staging for disease recurrence, and none evaluated MRI. Twenty-four studies evaluated whole body imaging. Six of these studies explored primary staging following a confirmed diagnosis of melanoma (492 participants), three evaluated re-staging of disease following some clinical indication of recurrence (589 participants), and 15 included mixed or not clearly described population groups comprising participants at a number of different points on the clinical pathway and at varying stages of disease (1265 participants). Results for whole body imaging could not be translated to a hypothetical cohort of people due to paucity of data.Most of the studies (6/9) of primary disease or re-staging of disease considered PET-CT, two in comparison to CT alone, and three studies examined the use of ultrasound. No eligible evaluations of MRI in these groups were identified. All studies used histological reference standards combined with follow-up, and two included FNAC for some participants. Observed accuracy for detection of any metastases for PET-CT was higher for re-staging of disease (summary sensitivity from two studies: 92.6%, 95% CI 85.3% to 96.4%; specificity: 89.7%, 95% CI 78.8% to 95.3%; 153 participants; 95 cases) compared to primary staging (sensitivities from individual studies ranged from 30% to 47% and specificities from 73% to 88%), and was more sensitive than CT alone in both population groups, but participant numbers were very small.No conclusions can be drawn regarding routine imaging of the brain via MRI or CT. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Review authors found a disappointing lack of evidence on the accuracy of imaging in people with a diagnosis of melanoma at different points on the clinical pathway. Studies were small and often reported data according to the number of lesions rather than the number of study participants. Imaging with ultrasound combined with FNAC before SLNB may identify around one-fifth of those with nodal disease, but confidence intervals are wide and further work is needed to establish cost-effectiveness. Much of the evidence for whole body imaging for primary staging or re-staging of disease is focused on PET-CT, and comparative data with CT or MRI are lacking. Future studies should go beyond diagnostic accuracy and consider the effects of different imaging tests on disease management. The increasing availability of adjuvant therapies for people with melanoma at high risk of disease spread at presentation will have a considerable impact on imaging services, yet evidence for the relative diagnostic accuracy of available tests is limited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31260100      PMCID: PMC6601698          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012806.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  373 in total

1.  The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed.

Authors:  Jonathan J Deeks; Petra Macaskill; Les Irwig
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Which kinds of lymph node metastases can FDG PET detect? A clinical study in melanoma.

Authors:  F Crippa; M Leutner; F Belli; F Gallino; M Greco; S Pilotti; N Cascinelli; E Bombardieri
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Cost-effectiveness of adding FDG-PET or CT to the diagnostic work-up of patients with stage III melanoma.

Authors:  Esther Bastiaannet; Carin A Uyl-de Groot; Adrienne H Brouwers; Eric J van der Jagt; Otto S Hoekstra; Wim Oyen; Fred Verzijlbergen; Bart van Ooijen; John F Thompson; Harald J Hoekstra
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Fine-needle aspiration biopsy with ultrasound guidance in patients with malignant melanoma and palpable lymph nodes.

Authors:  S Dalle; C Paulin; V Lapras; B Balme; S Ronger-Savle; L Thomas
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 9.302

5.  Level of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake predicts risk for recurrence in melanoma patients presenting with lymph node metastases.

Authors:  Esther Bastiaannet; Otto S Hoekstra; Wim J G Oyen; Piet L Jager; Theo Wobbes; Harald J Hoekstra
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2006-05-23       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Staging studies for cutaneous melanoma in the United States: a population-based analysis.

Authors:  Nabil Wasif; David Etzioni; Dana Haddad; Richard J Gray; Sanjay P Bagaria; Barbara A Pockaj
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Yield and predictors of radiologic studies for identifying distant metastases in melanoma patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Authors:  Jason S Gold; David P Jaques; Klaus J Busam; Mary S Brady; Daniel G Coit
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-04-24       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 8.  Surgical excision margins in primary cutaneous melanoma: A meta-analysis and Bayesian probability evaluation.

Authors:  Keith Wheatley; Jayne S Wilson; Piers Gaunt; Jerry R Marsden
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 12.111

9.  Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node positivity in thin melanoma (<or=1 mm).

Authors:  Melanie A Warycha; Jan Zakrzewski; Quanhong Ni; Richard L Shapiro; Russell S Berman; Anna C Pavlick; David Polsky; Madhu Mazumdar; Iman Osman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Incidence and prognosis of patients with brain metastases at diagnosis of systemic malignancy: a population-based study.

Authors:  Daniel N Cagney; Allison M Martin; Paul J Catalano; Amanda J Redig; Nancy U Lin; Eudocia Q Lee; Patrick Y Wen; Ian F Dunn; Wenya Linda Bi; Stephanie E Weiss; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Brian M Alexander; Ayal A Aizer
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 12.300

View more
  11 in total

1.  Can magnetic resonance imaging replace conventional computerized tomography for follow-up of patients with testicular cancer? A systematic review.

Authors:  Jonas Busch; Stefanie Schmidt; Peter Albers; Julia Heinzelbecker; Sabine Kliesch; Julia Lackner; David Pfister; Christian Ruf; Christian Winter; Friedemann Zengerling; Dirk Beyersdorff
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Precision Nuclear Medicine: The Evolving Role of PET in Melanoma.

Authors:  Chadwick L Wright; Eric D Miller; Carlo Contreras; Michael V Knopp
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2021-09       Impact factor: 1.947

Review 3.  BRAF Heterogeneity in Melanoma.

Authors:  Takamichi Ito; Yuka Tanaka; Maho Murata; Yumiko Kaku-Ito; Kazuhisa Furue; Masutaka Furue
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2021-02-08

4.  Rapid Noninvasive Skin Monitoring by Surface Mass Recording and Data Learning.

Authors:  Yingdi Zhu; Andreas Lesch; Xiaoyun Li; Tzu-En Lin; Natalia Gasilova; Milica Jović; Horst Matthias Pick; Ping-Chih Ho; Hubert H Girault
Journal:  JACS Au       Date:  2021-03-22

5.  Active surveillance of patients who have sentinel node positive melanoma: An international, multi-institution evaluation of adoption and early outcomes after the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II (MSLT-2).

Authors:  Kristy Kummerow Broman; Tasha Hughes; Lesly Dossett; James Sun; Dennis Kirichenko; Michael J Carr; Avinash Sharma; Edmund K Bartlett; Amanda A G Nijhuis; John F Thompson; Tina J Hieken; Lisa Kottschade; Jennifer Downs; David E Gyorki; Emma Stahlie; Alexander van Akkooi; David W Ollila; Jill Frank; Yun Song; Giorgos Karakousis; Marc Moncrieff; Jenny Nobes; John Vetto; Dale Han; Jeffrey M Farma; Jeremiah L Deneve; Martin D Fleming; Matthew C Perez; Michael C Lowe; Roger Olofsson Bagge; Jan Mattsson; Ann Y Lee; Russell S Berman; Harvey Chai; Hidde M Kroon; Juri Teras; Roland M Teras; Norma E Farrow; Georgia Beasley; Jane Yuet Ching Hui; Lukas Been; Schelto Kruijff; Youngchul Kim; Syeda Mahrukh Hussnain Naqvi; Amod A Sarnaik; Vernon K Sondak; Jonathan S Zager
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 6.921

Review 6.  Ultrasonography in diagnostic dermatology: a primer for clinicians.

Authors:  Sami Raza; Faisal Ali; Firas Al-Niaimi
Journal:  Arch Dermatol Res       Date:  2022-01-09       Impact factor: 3.017

7.  Canadian Melanoma Conference Recommendations on High-Risk Melanoma Surveillance: A Report from the 14th Annual Canadian Melanoma Conference; Banff, Alberta; 20-22 February 2020.

Authors:  Christina W Lee; J Gregory McKinnon; Noelle Davis
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 3.677

8.  Multimodal Imaging Techniques to Evaluate the Anticancer Effect of Cold Atmospheric Pressure Plasma.

Authors:  Marcel Kordt; Isabell Trautmann; Christin Schlie; Tobias Lindner; Jan Stenzel; Anna Schildt; Lars Boeckmann; Sander Bekeschus; Jens Kurth; Bernd J Krause; Brigitte Vollmar; Eberhard Grambow
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  Staging 18F-FDG PET/CT influences the treatment plan in melanoma patients with satellite or in-transit metastases.

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

10.  Tanshinone&nbsp;I and simvastatin inhibit melanoma tumour cell growth by regulating poly (ADP ribose) polymerase&nbsp;1 expression.

Authors:  Yuyan Zhang; Jiusui Huang; Yapeng Huang; Shike Zhang; Weizhou Wu; Hui Long; Xiaolu Duan; Yongchang Lai; Wenqi Wu
Journal:  Mol Med Rep       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 2.952

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.