Literature DB >> 9576286

Primary staging and follow-up of high risk melanoma patients with whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: results of a prospective study of 100 patients.

D Rinne1, R P Baum, G Hör, R Kaufmann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) has been retrospectively reported to be a sensitive method for detecting malignant melanoma metastases.
METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with high risk melanoma (tumor thickness > 1.5 mm) were prospectively evaluated (52 at primary diagnosis, comprising Group A, and 48 during follow-up, comprising Group B) by whole-body PET and conventional diagnostics (CD).
RESULTS: In Group A, the sensitivity of PET was 100% and the specificity was 94%, whereas CD did not identify any of the 9 lymph node metastases and demonstrated a lower specificity (80%). In Group B, 121 lesions were detected, 111 by PET and 69 by conventional imaging. On the basis of patients, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET were 100%, 95.5%, and 97.9%, respectively (91.8%, 94.4%, and 92.1%, respectively, on the basis of single metastases). Prospectively, CD did not identify all patients with progression (sensitivity, 84.6%) and detected significantly fewer metastases (sensitivity, 57.5%) with much lower specificity (68.2% on the basis of patients, 45% on the basis of single lesions); therefore, the accuracy of CD was 77.1% on the basis of patients and only 55.7% on the basis of single metastases. Results also depended on specific sites: while PET yielded a higher sensitivity in detecting cervical metastases (100% vs. 66.6%) and abdominal metastases (100% vs. 26.6%), computed tomography proved to be superior in detecting small lung metastases (87% vs. 69.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: PET is a highly sensitive and specific technique for melanoma staging. With the exception of the brain, one single whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET scan could replace the standard battery of imaging tests currently performed on high risk melanoma patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9576286     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19980501)82:9<1664::aid-cncr11>3.0.co;2-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  36 in total

Review 1.  [18F]FLT-PET in oncology: current status and opportunities.

Authors:  Lukas B Been; Albert J H Suurmeijer; David C P Cobben; Pieter L Jager; Harald J Hoekstra; Philip H Elsinga
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Oncologic positron emission tomography: a surgical perspective.

Authors:  Todd O Moore; Landis K Griffeth
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2003-01

3.  Direct comparison of [18F]FDG PET/CT with PET alone and with side-by-side PET and CT in patients with malignant melanoma.

Authors:  Felix M Mottaghy; Cord Sunderkötter; Roland Schubert; Petra Wohlfart; Norbert M Blumstein; Bernd Neumaier; Gerhard Glatting; Cueneyt Ozdemir; Andreas K Buck; Karin Scharffetter-Kochanek; Sven N Reske
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2007-02-13       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 4.  Positron emission tomography in the follow-up of cutaneous malignant melanoma patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Maria Danielsen; Liselotte Højgaard; Andreas Kjær; Barbara Mb Fischer
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-12-15

Review 5.  Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Oncology.

Authors:  Andrea Gallamini; Colette Zwarthoed; Anna Borra
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 6.639

6.  Routine use of FDG-PET scans in melanoma patients with positive sentinel node biopsy.

Authors:  Janne Horn; Jørgen Lock-Andersen; Helle Sjøstrand; Annika Loft
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-04-04       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  A prospective analysis of positron emission tomography and conventional imaging for detection of stage IV metastatic melanoma in patients undergoing metastasectomy.

Authors:  Steven E Finkelstein; Jorge A Carrasquillo; John M Hoffman; Barbara Galen; Peter Choyke; Donald E White; Steven A Rosenberg; Richard M Sherry
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2004-07-12       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 8.  PET/CT in oncology: for which tumours is it the reference standard?

Authors:  Conor D Collins
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 3.909

9.  Meta-analysis of the performance of (18)F-FDG PET in cutaneous melanoma.

Authors:  Felisa Jiménez-Requena; Roberto C Delgado-Bolton; Cristina Fernández-Pérez; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Judy Schwimmer; José M Pérez-Vázquez; José L Carreras-Delgado
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-09-02       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 10.  Staging of cutaneous melanoma.

Authors:  P Mohr; A M M Eggermont; A Hauschild; A Buzaid
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 32.976

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.