Literature DB >> 9586890

Prospective evaluation of 2-[18F]-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in staging of regional lymph nodes in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

D J Macfarlane1, V Sondak, T Johnson, R L Wahl.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess prospectively the accuracy of 2-[l8F]-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for predicting regional node involvement in cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients with CMM (primary lesions > 1.5 mm thick) scheduled for lymph node dissection (LND) were preoperatively studied with FDG-PET. Thirteen patients underwent therapeutic LND of 14 node basins, while nine patients had elective LND of 10 node basins. Medical problems precluded surgery in one patient. Two observers unaware of the clinical node status-apart from whether a recent surgical scar was present-read attenuation-corrected reconstructed transverse images acquired between 50 and 60 minutes after injection. Intensity of FDG uptake was scored as 0 to 3 + on a semiquantitative four-point scale: 0, no uptake; 1 +, faint; 2 +, moderate; and 3 +, intense uptake. A node group was considered positive on FDG-PET if it contained at least one focus of FDG uptake of > or = 2+ intensity. Histopathologic examination of the 24 dissected node groups served as a reference.
RESULTS: Considering regional node basins, PET imaging demonstrated 11 true-positive (TP), 10 true-negative (TN), two false-negative (FN), and one false-positive (FP) result, for an overall accuracy of 88%. Histopathologic from one FN case showed seven malignant cells in a marginal node sinus. The FP was due to reactive changes postbiopsy. In one patient, clinically involved lymph nodes were correctly categorized TN by PET. At least four additional 2 + foci seen outside the dissected regions on PET may represent metastases and are being monitored.
CONCLUSION: FDG-PET accurately predicted regional node status in 88% of CMM cases. The failure to detect micrometastatic disease may be due to the limitations of the imaging equipment and technique used here.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9586890     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.5.1770

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  10 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.  How morphometric analysis of metastatic load predicts the (un)usefulness of PET scanning: the case of lymph node staging in melanoma.

Authors:  G S Mijnhout; O S Hoekstra; A van Lingen; P J van Diest; H J Adèr; A A Lammertsma; R Pijpers; S Meijer; G J J Teule
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Contemporary diagnostic imaging modalities for the staging and surveillance of melanoma patients: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yan Xing; Yulia Bronstein; Merrick I Ross; Robert L Askew; Jeffrey E Lee; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Richard Royal; Janice N Cormier
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  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

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced FDG-PET/CT in primary staging of cutaneous malignant melanoma.

Authors:  Patrick Veit-Haibach; Florian M Vogt; Robert Jablonka; Hilmar Kuehl; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas Beyer; Gerlinde Dahmen; Sandra Rosenbaum; Gerald Antoch
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-01-21       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Anatomical and molecular imaging of skin cancer.

Authors:  Hao Hong; Jiangtao Sun; Weibo Cai
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol       Date:  2008-10-07

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

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

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.  FDG-PET/CT imaging findings of hepatic tumors and tumor-like lesions based on molecular background.

Authors:  Kumi Ozaki; Kenichi Harada; Noboru Terayama; Nobuyuki Kosaka; Hirohiko Kimura; Toshifumi Gabata
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 2.374

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.