Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1860–1868 | Cite as

False-Positive Results and Incidental Findings with Annual CT or PET/CT Surveillance in Asymptomatic Patients with Resected Stage III Melanoma

  • Amanda A. G. Nijhuis
  • Mbathio Dieng
  • Nikita Khanna
  • Sally J. Lord
  • Jo Dalton
  • Alexander M. Menzies
  • Robin M. Turner
  • Jay Allen
  • Robyn P. M. Saw
  • Omgo E. Nieweg
  • John F. Thompson
  • Rachael L. MortonEmail author



The aim of this study was to quantify false-positive and incidental findings from annual surveillance imaging in asymptomatic, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III melanoma patients.


This was a cohort study of patients treated at Melanoma Institute Australia (2000–2015) with baseline computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT imaging and at least two annual surveillance scans. False-positives were defined as findings suspicious for melanoma recurrence that were not melanoma, confirmed by histopathology, subsequent imaging, or clinical follow-up, while incidental findings were defined as non-melanoma-related findings requiring further action. Outcomes of incidental findings were classified as ‘benign’ if they resolved spontaneously or were not seriously harmful; ‘malignant’ if a second malignancy was identified; or ‘other’ if potentially harmful.


Among 154 patients, 1022 scans were performed (154 baseline staging, 868 surveillance) during a median follow-up of 85 months (interquartile range 56–112); 57 patients (37%) developed a recurrence. For baseline and surveillance imaging, 124 false-positive results and incidental findings were identified in 81 patients (53%). The frequency of these findings was 5–14% per year, and an additional 181 tests, procedures, and referrals were initiated to investigate these findings. The diagnosis was benign in 109 findings of 124 findings (88%). Fifteen patients with a benign finding underwent an unnecessary invasive procedure. Surveillance imaging identified distant metastases in 20 patients (13%).


False-positive results and incidental findings occur in at least half of all patients undergoing annual surveillance imaging, and the additional healthcare use is substantial. These findings persist over time. Clinicians need to be aware of these risks and discuss them with patients, alongside the expected benefits of surveillance imaging.



The authors sincerely thank Hazel Burke and Maria Gonzales at MIA for their help with data acquisition.


This work was supported by Cancer Australia’s Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme (Project Number 1129568).


Alexander M. Menzies has been on an advisory board for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dome, Novartis, and Pierre-Fabre, and has received speaking honoraria from Roche. Robyn P.M. Saw has been on an advisory board for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dome, Novartis, and Amgen, and has received a speaking honorarium from Bristol Meyers Squibb. John F. Thompson has been on an advisory board for and received honoraria and travel support from Bristol Meyers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dome, Provectus Inc., and GlaxoSmithKline. Amanda A.G. Nijhuis, Mbathio Dieng, Nikita Khanna, Sally J. Lord, Jo Dalton, Robin M. Turner, Jay Allen, Omgo E. Nieweg, and Rachael L. Morton have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

10434_2019_7311_MOESM1_ESM.docx (90 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 90 kb)


  1. 1.
    Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, et al. Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(6):472–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DeRose ER, Pleet A, Wang W, et al. Utility of 3-year torso computed tomography and head imaging in asymptomatic patients with high-risk melanoma. Melanoma Res. 2011;21:364–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Romano E, Scordo M, Dusza SW, et al. Site and timing of first relapse in stage III melanoma patients: Implications for follow-up guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3042–3047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leiter U, Buettner PG, Eigentler TK, et al. Is detection of melanoma metastasis during surveillance in an early phase of development associated with a survival benefit? Melanoma Res. 2010;20:240–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moschetti I, Cinquini M, Lambertini M, et al. Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(5):CD001768.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Primrose JN, Perera R, Gray A, et al. Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2014;311:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Long GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1813–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1824–1835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandala M, et al. Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1789–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gold JS, Jaques DP, Busam KJ, et al. Yield and predictors of radiologic studies for identifying distant metastases in melanoma patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2133–2140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xing Y, Cromwell KD, Cormier JN. Review of diagnostic imaging modalities for the surveillance of melanoma patients. Dermatol Res Pract. 2012;2012:941921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Podlipnik S, Carrera C, Sanchez M, et al. Performance of diagnostic tests in an intensive follow-up protocol for patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IIB, IIC, and III localized primary melanoma: a prospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:516–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holtkamp LHJ, Read RL, Emmett L, et al. Futility of imaging to stage melanoma patients with a positive sentinel lymph node. Melanoma Res. 2017;27(5):457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garbe C, Paul A, Kohler-Spath H, et al. Prospective evaluation of a follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma patients: recommendations for an effective follow-up strategy. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:520–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Francken AB, Bastiaannet E, Hoekstra HJ. Follow-up in patients with localised primary cutaneous melanoma. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:608–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Francken AB, Shaw HM, Accortt NA, et al. Detection of first relapse in cutaneous melanoma patients: implications for the formulation of evidence-based follow-up guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1924–1933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coit D, Thompson J, Albertini M, et al. Melanoma. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Philadelphia: NCCN; 2016Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dummer R, Hauschild A, Lindenblatt N, et al. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26 Suppl 5:v126–v132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pflugfelder A, Kochs C, Blum A, et al. Malignant melanoma S3-guideline “diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma”. J Dtsch Dermatol. 2013;11 Suppl 6:1–116Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Australian Cancer Network Melanoma Guidelines Revision Working Party. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of melanoma in Australia and New Zealand. Wellington: Cancer Council Australia and Australian Cancer Network, Sydney and New Zealand Guidelines Group, 2008Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE guideline. Melanoma: assessment and management. 2015. Accessed 31 Oct 2017
  22. 22.
    Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland. Dutch working group on melanoma. Melanoma guideline. 2013. Accessed 15 Nov 2017
  23. 23.
    Hess EP, Haas LR, Shah ND, et al. Trends in computed tomography utilization rates: a longitudinal practice-based study. J Patient Saf. 2014;10:52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wright CM, Bulsara MK, Norman R, et al. Increase in computed tomography in Australia driven mainly by practice change: a decomposition analysis. Health Policy. 2017;121:823–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rychetnik L, McCaffery K, Morton R, et al. Psychosocial aspects of post-treatment follow-up for stage I/II melanoma: a systematic review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2013;22:721–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, et al. Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ. 2013;346:f2360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morton RL, Craig JC, Thompson JF. The role of surveillance chest X-rays in the follow-up of high-risk melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, et al. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess. 2013; 17:1–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park TS, Phan GQ, Yang JC, et al. Routine computer tomography imaging for the detection of recurrences in high-risk melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;4:947–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mena E, Taghipour M, Sheikhbahaei S, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT and melanoma: value of fourth and subsequent posttherapy follow-up scans for patient management. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e403-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abbott RA, Acland KM, Harries M, et al. The role of positron emission tomography with computed tomography in the follow-up of asymptomatic cutaneous malignant melanoma patients with a high risk of disease recurrence. Melanoma Res. 2011;21:446–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lewin J, Sayers L, Kee D, et al. Surveillance imaging with FDG-PET in the post-operative follow-up of stage 3 melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1569–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Koskivuo I, Kemppainen J, Giordano S, et al. Whole body PET/CT in the follow-up of asymptomatic patients with stage IIB–IIIB cutaneous melanoma. Acta Oncol. 2016;55:1355–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baker JJ, Meyers MO, Yeh JJ, et al. Routine restaging PET/CT and detection of initial recurrence in sentinel lymph node positive stage III melanoma. Am J Surg. 2014;207:549–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Conrad F, Winkens T, Kaatz M, et al. Retrospective chart analysis of incidental findings detected by (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2016;14:807–816Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Horn J, Lock-Andersen J, Sjostrand H, et al. Routine use of FDG-PET scans in melanoma patients with positive sentinel node biopsy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:887–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:605–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haydu LE, Scolyer RA, Lo S, et al. Conditional survival: An assessment of the prognosis of patients at time points after initial diagnosis and treatment of locoregional melanoma metastasis. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1721–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Turner RM, Bell KJL, Morton RL, et al. Optimizing the frequency of follow-up visits for patients treated for localized primary cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4641–4646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rychetnik L, Morton RL, McCaffery K, et al. Shared care in the follow-up of early-stage melanoma: a qualitative study of Australian melanoma clinicians’ perspectives and models of care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rychetnik L, McCaffery K, Morton RL, et al. Follow-up of early stage melanoma: Specialist clinician perspectives on the functions of follow-up and implications for extending follow-up intervals. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107:463–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Read RL, Madronio CM, Cust AE, et al. Follow-Up recommendations after diagnosis of primary cutaneous melanoma: a population-based study in New South Wales, Australia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:617–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morton RL, Rychetnik L, McCaffery K, et al. Patients’ perspectives of long-term follow-up for localised cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Memari N, Hayen A, Bell KJL, et al. How often do patients with localized melanoma attend follow-up at a specialist center? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1164–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lim W-Y, Morton RL, Turner RM, et al. Patient preferences for follow-up after recent excision of a localized melanoma. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154:420CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda A. G. Nijhuis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mbathio Dieng
    • 3
  • Nikita Khanna
    • 3
  • Sally J. Lord
    • 3
  • Jo Dalton
    • 4
  • Alexander M. Menzies
    • 1
    • 5
  • Robin M. Turner
    • 6
  • Jay Allen
    • 1
  • Robyn P. M. Saw
    • 1
    • 7
    • 8
  • Omgo E. Nieweg
    • 1
    • 7
    • 8
  • John F. Thompson
    • 1
    • 7
    • 8
  • Rachael L. Morton
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Melanoma Institute AustraliaThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.University of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.NHMRC Clinical Trials CentreUniversity of SydneyCamperdownAustralia
  4. 4.Poche Centre, Clinical Trials, Melanoma Institute AustraliaThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Medical OncologyRoyal North Shore and Mater HospitalsSydneyAustralia
  6. 6.Biostatistics Unit, Dunedin School of MedicineUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  7. 7.Sydney Medical SchoolThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  8. 8.Department of Melanoma and Surgical OncologyRoyal Prince Alfred HospitalSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations