PET/CT in malignant melanoma: contrast-enhanced CT versus plain low-dose CT
- 331 Downloads
The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) versus non-enhanced low-dose CT (NECT) in the staging of advanced malignant melanoma with 18F-fluordeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT.
In total, 50 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations were performed in 50 patients with metastasized melanoma. For attenuation correction, whole-body NECT was performed followed by diagnostic CECT with contrast agent. For the whole-body PET, 18F-FDG was applied. Criteria for evaluation were signs of vital tumour tissue (extent of lesions, contrast enhancement, maximum standardized uptake value >2.5). Findings suspicious for melanoma were considered lesions. NECT, CECT and 18F-FDG PET were evaluated separately, followed by combined analysis of PET/NECT and PET/CECT. Findings were verified histologically and/or by follow-up (>6 months).
Overall, 232 lesions were analysed, and 151 proved to be metastases. The sensitivity of NECT, CECT, PET, PET/NECT and PET/CECT was 62, 85, 90, 97 and 100%, and specificity was 52, 63, 88, 93 and 93%, respectively. Compared to CECT, NECT obtained additional false-negative results: lymph node (n = 19) and liver/spleen metastases (n = 9). Misinterpreted physiological structures mainly caused additional false-positive findings (n = 17).
In combined analysis of PET/NECT, six false-positive [other tumours (n = 2), inflammatory lymph nodes (n = 2), inflammatory lung lesion (n = 1), blood vessel (n = 1)] and five false-negative findings [liver (n = 3), spleen (n = 1), lymph node metastases (n = 1)] remained. On PET/CECT, six false-positive [inflammatory lymph nodes (n = 3), other tumours (n = 2), inflammatory lung lesion (n = 1)] and no false-negative findings occurred. However, additional false findings on PET/NECT (6 of 232) did not change staging compared to PET/CECT.
Our results indicate that it is justified to perform PET/NECT instead of PET/CECT for melanoma staging.
KeywordsNon-contrast-enhanced PET/CT Contrast-enhanced PET/CT Malignant melanoma Metastases
Conflicts of interest
- 4.Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Mueller SP, Beyer T, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4357–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Müller-Horvat C, Radny P, Eigentler TK, Schäfer J, Pfannenberg C, Horger M, et al. Prospective comparison of the impact on treatment decisions of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:342–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Klode J, Dissemond J, Grabbe S, Hillen U, Poeppel T, Boeing C. Sentinel lymph node excision and PET-CT in the initial stage of malignant melanoma: a retrospective analysis of 61 patients with malignant melanoma in American Joint Committee on Cancer stages I and II. Dermatol Surg 2010;36:439–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K, Müller M, Bares R, Paulsen F, et al. Low dose non-enhanced CT versus standard dose contrast-enhanced CT in combined PET/CT protocols for staging and therapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:36–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Laurent V, Trausch G, Bruot O, Olivier P, Felblinger J, Régent D. Comparative study of two whole-body imaging techniques in the case of melanoma metastases: advantages of multi-contrast MRI examination including a diffusion-weighted sequence in comparison with PET-CT. Eur J Radiol 2010;75:376–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar