Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Direct comparison of [18F]FDG PET/CT with PET alone and with side-by-side PET and CT in patients with malignant melanoma

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 June 2007

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this retrospective, blinded study was to evaluate the additional value of [18F]FDG PET/CT in comparison with PET alone and with side-by-side PET and CT in patients with malignant melanoma (MM).

Methods

A total of 127 consecutive studies of patients with known MM referred for a whole-body PET/CT examination were included in this study. PET alone, side-by-side PET and CT and integrated PET/CT study were independently and separately interpreted without awareness of the clinical information. One score each was applied for certainty of lesion localisation and for certainty of lesion characterisation. Verification of the findings was subsequently performed using all available clinical, pathological (n = 30) and follow-up information.

Results

The number of lesions with an uncertain localisation was significantly (p < 0.001) reduced by PET/CT and side-by-side PET and CT (p < 0.05) in comparison with PET alone. In line with this increase in certainty integrated PET/CT reading also improved certainty in characterisation of lesions, however, this did not reach significance (p = 0.057) compared versus PET alone. Respectively, PET, side-by-side PET and CT and PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 86%, 89% and 91%, a specificity of 94%, 94% and 94%, a positive predictive value of 96%, 96% and 96% and a negative predictive value of 80%, 83% and 87%.

Conclusion

Integrated PET/CT offers a significant benefit in lesion localisation and an improvement in lesion characterisation compared with PET alone or with side-by-side PET and CT. The benefit is not as great as that reported for other tumour entities, which may be due to the high avidity of MM for [18F]FDG.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Garbe C, Paul A, Kohler-Spath H, Ellwanger U, Stroebel W, Schwarz M, et al. Prospective evaluation of a follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma patients: recommendations for an effective follow-up strategy. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:520–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Morton DL, Wanek L, Nizze JA, Elashoff RM, Wong JH. Improved long-term survival after lymphadenectomy of melanoma metastatic to regional nodes. Analysis of prognostic factors in 1134 patients from the John Wayne Cancer Clinic. Ann Surg 1991;214:491–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wood TF, DiFronzo LA, Rose DM, Haigh PI, Stern SL, Wanek L, et al. Does complete resection of melanoma metastatic to solid intra-abdominal organs improve survival? Ann Surg Oncol 2001;8:658–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ollila DW, Hsueh EC, Stern SL, Morton DL. Metastasectomy for recurrent stage IV melanoma. J Surg Oncol 1999;71:209–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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;19:3635–48.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Stephens PL, Ariyan S, Ocampo RV, Poo WJ. The predictive value of lymphoscintigraphy for nodal metastases of cutaneous melanoma. Conn Med 1999;63:387–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dicker TJ, Kavanagh GM, Herd RM, Ahmad T, McLaren KM, Chetty U, et al. A rational approach to melanoma follow-up in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. Scottish Melanoma Group. Br J Dermatol 1999;140:249–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rinne D, Baum RP, Hör 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;82:1664–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Holder WD Jr, White RL Jr, Zuger JH, Easton EJ Jr, Greene FL. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography for the detection of melanoma metastases. Ann Surg 1998;227:764–9; discussion 769–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eigtved A, Andersson AP, Dahlstrom K, Rabol A, Jensen M, Holm S, et al. Use of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of silent metastases from malignant melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:70–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Swetter SM, Carroll L, Johnson D, Segall G. Positron emission tomography (PET) is superior to computerized tomography (CT) for metastatic staging in melanoma patients. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3:154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Swetter SM, Carroll LA, Johnson DL, Segall GM. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography for metastatic detection in melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:646–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harris MT, Berlangieri SU, Cebon JS, Davis ID, Scott AM. Impact of 2-deoxy-2[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography on the management of patients with advanced melanoma. Mol Imaging Biol 2005;23:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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;24:1178–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mijnhout GS, Hoekstra OS, van Lingen A, van Diest PJ, Ader HJ, Lammertsma AA, et al. How morphometric analysis of metastatic load predicts the (un)usefulness of PET scanning: the case of lymph node staging in melanoma. J Clin Pathol 2003;56:283–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fink AM, Holle-Robatsch S, Herzog N, Mirzaei S, Rappersberger K, Lilgenau N, et al. Positron emission tomography is not useful in detecting metastasis in the sentinel lymph node in patients with primary malignant melanoma stage I and II. Melanoma Res 2004;14:141–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schäfer A, Herbst RA, Beiteke U, Lange-Ionescu S, Treckmann H, Lohlein D, et al. [Sentinel lymph node excision (SLNE) and positron emission tomography in the staging of stage I–II melanoma patients]. Hautarzt 2003;54:440–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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;17:1508–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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;41:1491–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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;104:570–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1797–803.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Breslow A. Thickness, cross-sectional areas and depth of invasion in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg 1970;172:902–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Berthelsen AK, Holm S, Loft A, Klausen TL, Andersen F, Hojgaard L. PET/CT with intravenous contrast can be used for PET attenuation correction in cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:1167–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S, Buck A, Lonn AH, Von Schulthess GK. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:922–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Harpio R, Einarsson R. S100 proteins as cancer biomarkers with focus on S100B in malignant melanoma. Clin Biochem 2004;37:512–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Metz CE, Herman BA, Shen JH. Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data. Stat Med 1998;17:1033–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bockisch A, Beyer T, Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Kuhl H, Debatin JF, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography—imaging protocols, artifacts, and pitfalls. Mol Imaging Biol 2004;6:188–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gritters LS, Francis IR, Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Initial assessment of positron emission tomography using 2-fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in the imaging of malignant melanoma. J Nucl Med 1993;34:1420–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Krug B, Dietlein M, Groth W, Stutzer H, Psaras T, Gossmann A, et al. Fluor-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in malignant melanoma. Diagnostic comparison with conventional imaging methods. Acta Radiol 2000;41:446–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Libberecht K, Husada G, Peeters T, Michiels P, Gys T, Molderez C. Initial staging of malignant melanoma by positron emission tomography and sentinel node biopsy. Acta Chir Belg 2005;105:621–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Ulm, Robert-Koch-Strasse 8, 89073, Ulm, Germany

    Felix M. Mottaghy, Petra Wohlfart, Norbert M. Blumstein, Bernd Neumaier, Gerhard Glatting, Andreas K. Buck & Sven N. Reske

  2. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany

    Cord Sunderkötter, Roland Schubert, Cueneyt Özdemir & Karin Scharfetter-Kochanek

  3. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Münster, Munster, Germany

    Cord Sunderkötter

Authors
  1. Felix M. Mottaghy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cord Sunderkötter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roland Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Petra Wohlfart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Norbert M. Blumstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bernd Neumaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gerhard Glatting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Cueneyt Özdemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Andreas K. Buck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Karin Scharfetter-Kochanek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sven N. Reske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felix M. Mottaghy.

Additional information

Felix M. Mottaghy and Cord Sunderkötter contributed equally to this paper.

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-007-0463-9

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mottaghy, F.M., Sunderkötter, C., Schubert, R. et al. Direct comparison of [18F]FDG PET/CT with PET alone and with side-by-side PET and CT in patients with malignant melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34, 1355–1364 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0358-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0358-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation