Advertisement

Dermatological

  • David Brandon
  • Bruce Barron
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)

Abstract

FDG PET/CT is a valuable tool to evaluate many dermatologic malignancies, especially in more advanced disease states. The literature supporting the use of FDG PET/CT in staging, restaging, or treatment assessment is greatest in melanoma. When compared to conventional imaging, FDG PET/CT is superior due to better lesion sensitivity and the extended imaging coverage. Changes in management due to PET/CT results are frequently reported in more than 30% of patients with skin cancers.

Keywords

Brain Metastasis BRAF Mutation Cutaneous Melanoma Merkel Cell Carcinoma Mycosis Fungoides 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Khalil Salman, MD, and Robert Lucaj, MD, for their help in preparing some of the cases.

References

  1. Abeloff MD et al (eds) (2008) Abeloff’s clinical oncology. 4th edn. Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, Philadelphia, p 2592Google Scholar
  2. Akcali C et al (2007) Detection of metastases in patients with cutaneous melanoma using FDG-PET/CT. J Int Med Res 35(4):547–553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aukema T et al (2010) Utility of preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT and brain MRI in melanoma patients with palpable lymph node metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 17(10):2773–2778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balch CM et al (1983) A multifactorial analysis of melanoma. IV. Prognostic factors in 200 melanoma patients with distant metastases (stage III). J Clin Oncol Off J Amer Soc Clin Oncol 1(2):126–134Google Scholar
  5. Balch CM et al (2001) Prognostic factors analysis of 17, 600 melanoma patients: validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging. J Clin Oncol 19(16):3622–3634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumer SL et al (2009) Cutaneous and subcutaneous imaging on FDG-PET: benign and malignant findings. Clin Nucl Med 34(10):675–683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosserhoff A (ed) (2011) Melanoma development: molecular biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 390Google Scholar
  8. Cho SB et al (2005) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: retrospective analysis of 12 patients. Dermatol Surg 31(4):442–446 (Discussion 446-7)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Concannon R, Larcos GS, Veness M (2010) The impact of 18F-FDG PET-CT scanning for staging and management of Merkel cell carcinoma: results from Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia. J Am Acad Dermatol 62(1):76–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Da Forno PD, Saldanha GS (2011) Molecular aspects of melanoma. Clin Lab Med 31(2):331–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denoyer D et al (2010) High-contrast PET of melanoma using (18)F-MEL050, a selective probe for melanin with predominantly renal clearance. J Nucl Med 51(3):441–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denoyer D et al (2011) Improved detection of regional melanoma metastasis using 18F–6-fluoro-N-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl] pyridine-3-carboxamide, a melanin-specific PET probe, by perilesional administration. J Nucl Med 52(1):115–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Burger C (2001) Quantitative PET studies in pretreated melanoma patients: a comparison of 6-[18F]fluoro-L-dopa with 18F-FDG and (15)O-water using compartment and noncompartment analysis. J Nucl Med 42(2):248–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dirisamer A et al (2008) Dual-time-point FDG-PET/CT for the detection of hepatic metastases. Mol Imag Biology 10(6):335–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edge S et al (eds) (2009) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York Google Scholar
  16. Elstrom R et al (2003) FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood 101(10):3875–3876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Essler M et al (2011) Prognostic value of [18F]-fluoro-deoxy-glucose PET/CT, S100 or MIA for assessment of cancer-associated mortality in patients with high risk melanoma. PLoS ONE 6(9):e24632Google Scholar
  18. Etchebehere EC et al (2010) Impact of [F-18] FDG-PET/CT in the restaging and management of patients with malignant melanoma. Nucl Med Commun 31(11):925–930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feeney J et al (2010) Characterization of T-cell lymphomas on FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol 195(2):333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fosko SW et al (2003) Positron emission tomography for basal cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Arch Dermatol 139(9):1141–1146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freton A et al (2011) Initial PET/CT staging for choroidal melanoma: AJCC correlation and second nonocular primaries in 333 patients. Eur J Ophthalmol 22(2):236–243 Google Scholar
  22. Friedman KP, Wahl RL (2004) Clinical use of positron emission tomography in the management of cutaneous melanoma. Semin Nucl Med 34(4):242–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gritters L et al (1993) Initial assessment of positron emission using 2-fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose in the imaging of malignant melanoma. J Nucl Med 34:1420–1427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gulec SA et al (2003) The role of fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of patients with metastatic melanoma: impact on surgical decision making. Clin Nucl Med 28(12):961–965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Habif TP (2010) Clinical dermatology. 5th edn. Elsevier, MosbyGoogle Scholar
  26. Haerle SK et al (2011) The value of (18)F-FDG-PET/CT imaging for sinonasal malignant melanoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269(1):127–33Google Scholar
  27. Hamid O et al (2011) Systemic treatments of metastatic melanoma: new approaches. J Surg Onc 104:425–429Google Scholar
  28. Hocker T, Tsao H (2007) Ultraviolet radiation and melanoma: a systematic review and analysis or reported sequence variants. Hum Mutat 28(6):578–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hodi F et al (2010) Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 363:711–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofman MS et al (2007) Assessing response to chemotherapy in metastatic melanoma with FDG PET: early experience. Nucl Med Commun 28(12):902–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iagaru A et al (2006) Merkel cell carcinoma: Is there a role for 2-deoxy-2-[f-18]fluoro-d-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography? Mol Imag Biology : MIB : Off Publ Acad Mol Imag 8(4):212–217Google Scholar
  32. Jimenez-Requena F et al (2010) Meta-analysis of the performance of 18F-FDG PET in cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 37:284–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kako S et al (2007) FDG-PET in T-cell and NK-cell neoplasms. Ann Oncol 18:1685–1690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kalady MF et al (2003) Thin melanomas: predictive lethal characteristics from a 30-year clinical experience. Ann Surg 238(4):528–535 Discussion 535–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kalkanis D et al (2011) F-18 FDG PET positive hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathy mimicking metastatic disease in a melanoma patient treated with interferon-alpha-2b. Clin Nucl Med 36(2):154–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kern K (1991) [14C]deoxyglucose uptake and imaging in malignant melanoma. J Surg Res 50:643–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim J-S et al (2010) Before and after treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT images in a patient with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 37:1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krug B et al (2008) Role of PET in the initial staging of cutaneous malignant melanoma: systematic review. Radiology 249(3):836–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kumar R et al (2006) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in evaluation of primary cutaneous lymphoma. Br J Dermatol 155:357–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuo PH et al (2008a) FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Mol Imag Biol 10:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuo PH et al (2008b) FDG-PET/CT for the evaluation of response to therapy of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma to vorinostat (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid, SAHA) in a phase II trial. Mol Imag Biol 10:306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kurli M, Chin K, Finger PT (2008) Whole-body 18 FDG PET/CT imaging for lymph node and metastatic staging of conjunctival melanoma. Br J Ophthalmol 92(4):479–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lachiewicz AM et al (2008) Epidemiologic support for melanoma heterogeneity using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. J Invest Dermatol 128(5):1340–1342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lamarre ED et al (2011) Role of positron emission tomography in management of sinonasal neoplasms-a single institution’s experience. Amer J Otolaryngol. PMID 21925763 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  45. Lampreave JL et al (1998) PET evaluation of therapeutic limb perfusion in Merkel’s cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med 39(12):2087–2090PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Laver NV, McLaughlin ME, Duker JS (2010) Ocular melanoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 134(12):1778–1784PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Leong SP et al (2011) Cutaneous melanoma: a model to study cancer metastasis. J Surg Onc 103:538–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lindholm P et al (1995) Carbon-11-methionine PET imaging of malignant melanoma. J Nucl Med 36(10):1806–1810PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Maury F et al (2011) Interest of (18)F-FDG PET-CT scanning for staging and management of merkel cell carcinoma: a retrospective study of 15 patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol doi:  10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.03994.x
  50. Mercier GA, Alavi A, Fraker DL (2001) FDG positron emission tomography in isolated limb perfusion therapy in patients with locally advanced melanoma: preliminary results. Clin Nucl Med 26(10):832–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Metser U, Even-Sapir E (2007) Increased (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in benign, nonphysiologic lesions found on whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT): accumulated data from four years of experience with PET/CT. Semin Nucl Med 37(3):206–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Metser U et al (2007) Benign nonphysiologic lesions with increased 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT: characterization and incidence. Am J Roentgenol 189(5):1203–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mishima Y et al (1997) In vivo diagnosis of human malignant melanoma with positron emission tomography using specific melanoma-seeking 18F-DOPA analogue. J Neurooncol 33(1–2):163–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nieder C, Grosu AL (2005) Response monitoring by positron emission tomography during radiotherapy of a squamous cell skin carcinoma. Onkologie 28(10):505–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Niederkohr RD et al (2007) Clinical value of including the head and lower extremities in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for patients with malignant melanoma. Nucl Med Commun 28(9):688–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peloschek P et al (2010) Diagnostic imaging in Merkel cell carcinoma: lessons to learn from 16 cases with correlation of sonography, CT, MRI and PET. Eur J Radiol 73(2):317–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pfannenberg C et al (2007) Prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in staging of advanced malignant melanoma. Eur J Cancer 43(3):557–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pfluger T et al (2011) PET/CT in malignant melanoma: contrast-enhanced CT versus plain low-dose CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 38(5):822–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Plettenberg A et al (1995) Human melanocytes and melanoma cells constitutively express the Bcl-2 proto-oncogene in situ and in cell culture. Am J Pathol 146(3):651–659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Querellou S et al (2010) Clinical and therapeutic impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT whole-body acquisition including lower limbs in patients with malignant melanoma. Nucl Med Commun 31(9):766–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Quevado W, Szabo GJ (1969) Influence of age and UV on the populations of dopa-positive melanocytes in human skin. J Invest Dermatol 52(3):287–290Google Scholar
  62. Reinhardt MJ et al (2006) 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 24(7):1178–1187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ren G, Pan Y, Cheng Z (2010) Molecular probes for malignant melanoma imaging. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 11(6):590–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ribas A et al (2010) Imaging of CTLA4 blockade-induced cell replication with (18)F-FLT PET in patients with advanced melanoma treated with tremelimumab. J Nucl Med 51(3):340–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Robert C et al (2011) Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously treated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 364:2517–2526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seetharamu N, Ott PA, Pavlick AC (2010) Mucosal melanomas: a case-based review of the literature. The Oncologist 15(7):772–781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shapiro M et al (2002) Assessment of tumor burden and treatment response by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose injection and positron emission tomography in patients with cutaneous T- and B-cell lymphomas. J Am Acad Dermatol 47(4):623–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Society AC (2011a) Cancer Facts & Figures 2011. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  69. Society AC (2011b) Melanoma skin cancer. In: American Cancer Society, A.C. Society, Editor 2011, American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  70. Spraul CW, Lang GE, Lang GK (2001) Value of positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of malignant ocular tumors. Ophthalmologica. J Int d’ophtalmologie. Int J Ophthalmol. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde 215(3):163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Strobel K et al (2007) High risk melanoma: accuracy of FDG PET/CT with added CT morphologic information for detection of metastases. Radiology 244(2):566–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Strobel K et al (2008) Chemotherapy response assessment in stage IV melanoma patients-comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT, CT, brain MRI, and tumormarker S-100B. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 35(10):1786–1795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Strobel K et al (2009) Limited value of 18F-FDG PET/CT and S-100B tumour marker in the detection of liver metastases from uveal melanoma compared to liver metastases from cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 36(11):1774–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Talbot J-N et al (2005) 6-[F-18]Fluoro-L-DOPA positron emission tomography in the imaging of merkel cell carcinoma: preliminary report of three cases with 2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]Fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography or pentetreotide-(111In) SPECT data. Mol Imaging Biol 7:257–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tsai EY et al (2006) Staging accuracy in mycosis fungoides and Sezary syndrome using positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Arch Dermatol 142:577–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Uren RF et al (2011) Guidelines for lymphoscintigraphy and F18 FDG PET scans in melanoma. J Surg Onc 104:405–419Google Scholar
  77. Valencak J et al (2004) Positron emission tomography with [18F] 2-fluoro-D-2-deoxyglucose in primary cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. Haematologica 89(1):115–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Valk P et al (1996) Cost-effectiveness of PET imaging in clinical oncology. Nucl Med Biol 23(6):737–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wagner J et al (2001) FDG-PET sensitivity for melanoma lymph node metastases is dependent on tumor volume. J Surg Onc 77(4):237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wahl R et al (1991) 18F–2-deoxyglucose-2-fluoro-d-glucose uptake into human tumor xenografts. Feasibility studies for cancer imaging with positron-emission tomography. Cancer 67:1544–1550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ware R et al (2011) First human study of N-(2-(diethylamino)ethyl)-6-[F-18]fluoropyridine-3-carboxamide (MEL050). J Nucl Med 52(Suppl 1):415Google Scholar
  82. Wehrli NE et al (2007) Determination of age-related changes in structure and function of skin, adipose tissue, and skeletal muscle with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Semin Nucl Med 37(3):195–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wong HH, Wang J (2010) Merkel cell carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 134(11):1711–1716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Wong CO, Pham AN, Dworkin HJ (2000) F-18 FDG accumulation in an octreotide negative Merkel cell tumor. Clin Positron Imag 3(2):71–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Yang J (2011) Melanoma vaccines. Cancer J 17(5):277–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yu L et al (1999) Detection of microscopic melanoma metastases in sentinel lymph nodes. Cancer 86:617–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zwald FOR, Brown M (2011) Skin cancer in solid organ transplant recipients: advances in therapy and management. part I. Epidemiology of skin cancer in solid organ transplant recipients. J Am Acad Dermatol 65(2):253–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations