Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced FDG-PET/CT (ce-PET/CT), PET-only, and CT-only in patients with newly diagnosed and resected cutaneous malignant melanoma.

Methods

A final group of 56 patients (mean age 62 years, range 23–86 years; 29 women, 27 men) were staged with ce-PET/CT after resection of the primary tumour. Histopathology as well as clinical follow-up (mean 780 days, range 102–1,390 days) served as the standards of reference. Differences between the staging modalities were tested for statistical significance with McNemar’s test.

Results

All imaging procedures provided low sensitivities in the detection of lymph nodes (sensitivity N-stage: PET/CT and PET-only 38.5%; CT-only 23.1%) and distant metastases (sensitivity M-stage: PET/CT 41.7%, PET-only 33.3%, CT-only 25.0%) in initial staging after resection of the primary tumour. No statistically significant differences were detected between the imaging procedures (p > 0.05). PET/CT resulted in an alteration in further treatment in two patients compared to PET-only and in four patients compared to CT-only.

Conclusion

All imaging modalities had a low sensitivity on initial staging of patients with malignant melanoma. Thus, close patient follow-up must be considered mandatory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57 1:43–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Balch CM, Soong SJ, Gershenwald JE, Thompson JF, Reintgen DS, Cascinelli N, et al. Prognostic factors analysis of 17,600 melanoma patients: validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system. J Clin Oncol 2001;19 16:3622–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Breslow A. Thickness, cross-sectional areas and depth of invasion in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma. Annals of surgery Nov 1970;172 5:902–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong SJ, Atkins MB, Cascinelli N, Coit DG, et al. Final version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2001;19 16:3635–48.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Day CL Jr, Sober AJ, Lew RA, Mihm MC Jr, Fitzpatrick TB, Kopf AW, et al. Malignant melanoma patients with positive nodes and relatively good prognoses: microstaging retains prognostic significance in clinical stage I melanoma patients with metastases to regional nodes. Cancer 1981;47 5:955–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Fort Washington, PA. http://www.nccn.org.

  7. Tsao H, Atkins MB, Sober AJ. Management of cutaneous melanoma. N Engl J Med 2004;351 10:998–1012.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Friedman KP, Wahl RL. Clinical use of positron emission tomography in the management of cutaneous melanoma. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34 4:242–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001;42 5 Suppl:1S–93S.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Reinhardt MJ, Joe AY, Jaeger U, Huber A, Matthies A, Bucerius J, et al. Diagnostic performance of whole body dual modality 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for N- and M-staging of malignant melanoma: experience with 250 consecutive patients. J Clin Oncol 2006;24 7:1178–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Strobel K, Dummer R, Husarik DB, Perez Lago M, Hany TF, Steinert HC. High-risk melanoma: accuracy of FDG PET/CT with added CT morphologic information for detection of metastases. Radiology 2007;244 2:566–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Strobel K, Skalsky J, Steinert HC, Dummer R, Hany TF, Bhure U, et al. S-100B and FDG-PET/CT in therapy response assessment of melanoma patients. Dermatology 2007;215 3:192–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J, Jentzen W, Mueller SP, Debatin JF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography-CT: optimized CT using oral and IV contrast materials. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179 6:1555–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, Freudenberg LF, Akhurst T, Mueller S. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30 4:588–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Delbeke D, Martin WH, Sandler MP, Chapman WC, Wright JK Jr, Pinson CW. Evaluation of benign vs malignant hepatic lesions with positron emission tomography. Arch Surg 1998;133 5:510–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Valk PE, Bailey DL, Townsend DW, Maisey MN. Positron emission tomography: basic science and clinical practice. Berlin: Springer; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  17. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer staging manual. 6th edition. Heidelberg: Springer; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  18. European Society for Medical Oncology. Viganello-Lugano, Switzerland. http://www.esmo.org.

  19. Tango T. Equivalence test and confidence interval for the difference in proportions for the paired-sample design. Stat Med 1998;17 8:891–908.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fuster D, Chiang S, Johnson G, Schuchter LM, Zhuang H, Alavi A. Is 18F-FDG PET more accurate than standard diagnostic procedures in the detection of suspected recurrent melanoma? J Nucl Med 2004;45 8:1323–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Crippa F, Leutner M, Belli F, Gallino F, Greco M, Pilotti S, et al. Which kinds of lymph node metastases can FDG PET detect? A clinical study in melanoma. J Nucl Med 2000;41 9:1491–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rinne D, Baum RP, Hor G, Kaufmann R. 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. Cancer 1998;82 9:1664–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wagner JD, Schauwecker DS, Davidson D, Wenck S, Jung SH, Hutchins G. FDG-PET sensitivity for melanoma lymph node metastases is dependent on tumor volume. J Surg Oncol 2001;77 4:237–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tyler DS, Onaitis M, Kherani A, Hata A, Nicholson E, Keogan M, et al. Positron emission tomography scanning in malignant melanoma. Cancer 2000;89 5:1019–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wagner JD, Schauwecker D, Davidson D, Logan T, Coleman JJ 3rd, Hutchins G, et al. Inefficacy of F-18 fluorodeoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography scans for initial evaluation in early-stage cutaneous melanoma. Cancer 2005;104 3:570–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schoder H, Larson SM, Yeung HW. PET/CT in oncology: integration into clinical management of lymphoma, melanoma, and gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 2004;45 Suppl 1:72S–81S.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Belhocine T, Pierard G, De Labrassinne M, Lahaye T, Rigo P. Staging of regional nodes in AJCC stage I and II melanoma: 18FDG PET imaging versus sentinel node detection. Oncologist 2002;7 4:271–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Havenga K, Cobben DC, Oyen WJ, Nienhuijs S, Hoekstra HJ, Ruers TJ, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and sentinel lymph node biopsy in staging primary cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003;29 8:662–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Macfarlane DJ, Sondak V, Johnson T, Wahl RL. Prospective evaluation of 2-[18F]-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in staging of regional lymph nodes in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Clin Oncol 1998;16 5:1770–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Wagner JD, Schauwecker D, Davidson D, Coleman JJ 3rd, Saxman S, Hutchins G, et al. Prospective study of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging of lymph node basins in melanoma patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy. J Clin Oncol 1999;17 5:1508–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Veit-Haibach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Veit-Haibach, P., Vogt, F.M., Jablonka, R. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced FDG-PET/CT in primary staging of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36, 910–918 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-1049-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-1049-x

Keywords

Navigation