Abstract
Aim
To evaluate the use of digital 18F-FDG PET/CT with small-voxels reconstruction for detecting in-transit metastases in melanoma patients with primary lesion located on the upper or lower limbs, in comparison with standard reconstruction and European Association of Nuclear Medicine Research limited (EARL)-compliant reconstruction mimicking former generation PET systems.
Methods
Forty-six PET examinations acquired in list mode on a Vereos digital PET/CT system were reconstructed with (1) the standard reconstruction [2 iterations, 10 subsets (2i10s), point-spread function (PSF) modelling and time-of-flight enabled, no post-filtering and voxel size of 2 mm], (2) a small-voxel reconstruction using 1 mm voxels otherwise using the same parameters, (3) an EARL-compliant reconstruction mimicking a former generation system. Comparison of results across these reconstructions was made for a blind randomized review using a 3-point scale for the presence of in-transit metastases and image quality as well as for tumour-to-background (T/B) ratios and noise level in reference organs.
Results
Seven of the thirty-two EARL-compliant images classified as negative moved to positive on 1mmPSF images, and 5 of the 6 EARL-compliant images classified as indeterminate moved to positive on 1mmPSF images (P = 0.01). Amongst a total of 20 PET examinations classified as positive using the 1mmPSF reconstruction, fifteen were considered true positive, five false positive results occurred. Twenty-four patients with 1 mm PSF images were classified as negative, none of those under active surveillance experienced in-transit metastases during the 17 months following their PET examination. The positive likelihood ratio for the 1 mm reconstruction was much higher than that observed for EARL-compliant images (14.7 vs 7.82). Importantly, negative likelihood ratios for the 1 mm and 1mmPSF reconstruction were almost perfect. Compared to EARL-compliant data, T/B ratios extracted from the 1mmPSF showed a 2.84-fold increase (P < 0.001). A similar pattern of statistically significant increase was observed for noise level in organs of reference. Image quality for the torso was found to be significantly lower for 1mmPSF reconstruction (P = 0.03). Image quality for the limbs was found to be better for 1mmPSF (P < 0.001).
Conclusion
Digital PET with small-voxel reconstruction brings an additional value for the detection of in-transit metastases by reducing the number of indeterminate findings and making up for falsely negative scans using former generation PET systems. An acquisition encompassing lower or upper limbs as appropriate should be performed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Michielin O, van Akkooi ACJ, Ascierto PA, Dummer R, Keilholz U, clinicalguidelines@esmo.org EGCEa. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-updagger. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(12):1884–901.
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.
Grunhagen DJ, Brunstein F, Graveland WJ, van Geel AN, de Wilt JH, Eggermont AM. One hundred consecutive isolated limb perfusions with TNF-alpha and melphalan in melanoma patients with multiple in-transit metastases. Ann Surg. 2004;240(6):939–47 ((discussion 47–8)).
Roses DF, Harris MN, Rigel D, Carrey Z, Friedman R, Kopf AW. Local and in-transit metastases following definitive excision for primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. Ann Surg. 1983;198(1):65–9.
Lazaga FJ, Oz OK, Adams-Huet B, Anderson J, Mathews D. Comparison of whole-body versus limited whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT scan in malignant cutaneous melanoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(11):882–4.
Niederkohr RD, Rosenberg J, Shabo G, Quon A. Clinical value of including the head and lower extremities in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for patients with malignant melanoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28(9):688–95.
Querellou S, Keromnes N, Abgral R, Sassolas B, Le Roux PY, Cavarec MB, et al. Clinical and therapeutic impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT whole-body acquisition including lower limbs in patients with malignant melanoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2010;31(9):766–72.
Bellevre D, Blanc Fournier C, Switsers O, Dugue AE, Levy C, Allouache D, et al. Staging the axilla in breast cancer patients with (1)(8)F-FDG PET: how small are the metastases that we can detect with new generation clinical PET systems? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(6):1103–12.
Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Bradley KM, Belcher E, Black E, Gleeson FV. Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(2):576–84.
Fuentes-Ocampo F, López-Mora DA, Flotats A, Paillahueque G, Camacho V, Duch J, et al. Digital vs. analog PET/CT: intra-subject comparison of the SUVmax in target lesions and reference regions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(8):1745–50.
López-Mora DA, Flotats A, Fuentes-Ocampo F, Camacho V, Fernández A, Ruiz A, et al. Comparison of image quality and lesion detection between digital and analog PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(6):1383–90.
Rausch I, Ruiz A, Valverde-Pascual I, Cal-Gonzalez J, Beyer T, Carrio I. Performance Evaluation of the Vereos PET/CT System According to the NEMA NU2-2012 Standard. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(4):561–7.
Salvadori J, Odille F, Verger A, Olivier P, Karcher G, Marie PY, et al. Head-to-head comparison between digital and analog PET of human and phantom images when optimized for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio from small lesions. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7(1):11.
Beyer T, Bockisch A, Kühl H, Martinez MJ. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT in the presence of truncation artifacts. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(1):91–9.
Sarikaya I, Sarikaya A. PET/CT image artifacts caused by the arms. J Nucl Med Technol. 2021;49(1):19–22. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.120.248641.
Dudoignon D, Pattison DA, Legallois D, Hicks RJ, Aide N. The utility of pharmacological and radiological interventions to optimize diagnostic information from PET/CT. Cancer Imaging. 2020;20(1):68.
Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit-Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(Suppl 1):17–31.
Black WC, Armstrong P. Communicating the significance of radiologic test results: the likelihood ratio. Am J Roentgenol. 1986;147(6):1313–8.
Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios. Lancet. 2005;365(9469):1500–5.
Beasley GM, Parsons C, Broadwater G, Selim MA, Marzban S, Abernethy AP, et al. A multicenter prospective evaluation of the clinical utility of F-18 FDG-PET/CT in patients with AJCC stage IIIB or IIIC extremity melanoma. Ann Surg. 2012;256(2):350–6.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S-S150.
Quak E, Le Roux PY, Lasnon C, Robin P, Hofman MS, Bourhis D, et al. Does PET SUV harmonization affect PERCIST response classification? J Nucl Med. 2016;57(11):1699–706.
Weisman AJ, Bradshaw TJ, Namias M, Jeraj R. Impact of scanner harmonization on PET-based treatment response assessment in metastatic melanoma. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(22): https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/abb6bb.
Lasnon C, Coudrais N, Houdu B, Nganoa C, Salomon T, Enilorac B, et al. How fast can we scan patients with modern (digital) PET/CT systems? Eur J Radiol. 2020;129:109144.
Sanaat A, Shiri I, Arabi H, Mainta I, Nkoulou R, Zaidi H. Deep learning-assisted ultra-fast/low-dose whole-body PET/CT imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05167-1.
Holtkamp LHJ, Chakera AH, Fung S, Stretch JR, Saw RPM, Lee K, et al. Staging 18F-FDG PET/CT influences the treatment plan in melanoma patients with satellite or in-transit metastases. Melanoma Res. 2020;30(4):358–63.
Acknowledgements
Ms Lapasset is thanked for English editing.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None to declare.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the regional Ethics Committee (registration number: CERES 27669).
Informed consent
Authorization to use additional reconstructions for research purpose was sought from every patient.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zimmermann, PA., Houdu, B., Césaire, L. et al. Revisiting detection of in-transit metastases in melanoma patients using digital 18F-FDG PET/CT with small-voxel reconstruction. Ann Nucl Med 35, 669–679 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-021-01608-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-021-01608-5