| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
ORIGINAL ARTICLES |
From Dermatology (SMS) and Nuclear Medicine (GMS) Services, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California; and Departments of Dermatology (SMS, LAC), Radiology (GMS), and Surgery (DLJ), Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Susan M. Swetter, MD, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University Medical Center, 900 Blake Wilbur Dr., W0069, Stanford, CA 94305; Fax: 650-723-7796; E-mail: sswetter{at}stanford.edu
Background: Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) provides diagnostic information not currently available with traditional imaging and may improve the accuracy of staging melanoma patients.
Methods: A retrospective cohort review was performed of 104 patients with primary or recurrent melanoma who underwent PET to determine sensitivity/specificity for metastatic detection compared with body computed tomography (CT). One hundred fifty-seven PET and 70 CT scans were analyzed, with a median patient follow-up of 24 months. Metastases were confirmed with positive histology (87.5%) or documented disease progression (12.5%). Fifty-three patients prospectively underwent consecutive studies within a mean 3-week interval for direct comparative analysis.
Results: PET demonstrated 84% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], .78 to .89) and 97% specificity (95% CI, .91 to .99), whereas CT showed 58% sensitivity (95% CI, .49 to .66) and 70% specificity (95% CI, .51 to .84). Exclusion of areas not evaluated on CT (head, neck/supraclavicular, extremities) increased CT sensitivity to 69% (95% CI, .59 to .77). Sixty-six consecutive PET and CT scans were performed with 81% and 57% of metastases detected, respectively.
Conclusions: PET is more sensitive and specific than CT for detection of melanoma metastasis and should be considered the primary staging study for recurrent disease. PET shows greater ability to detect soft tissue, small-bowel, and lymph node metastasis that do not meet criteria designated as abnormal by CT. PET is superior to CT even when sites not routinely evaluated by CT are excluded from comparative analysis.
Key Words: Melanoma • FDG-PET • CT • Staging • Comparative studies
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  K. Strobel, R. Dummer, D. B. Husarik, M. Perez Lago, T. F. Hany, and H. C. Steinert High-Risk Melanoma: Accuracy of FDG PET/CT with Added CT Morphologic Information for Detection of Metastases Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 566 - 574. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. A. Aloia, J. E. Gershenwald, R. H. Andtbacka, M. M. Johnson, C. W. Schacherer, C. S. Ng, J. N. Cormier, J. E. Lee, M. I. Ross, and P. F. Mansfield Utility of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Staging Before Completion Lymphadenectomy in Patients With Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma J. Clin. Oncol., June 20, 2006; 24(18): 2858 - 2865. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Z. Belhocine, A. M. Scott, E. Even-Sapir, J.-L. Urbain, and R. Essner Role of Nuclear Medicine in the Management of Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2006; 47(6): 957 - 967. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. D. Wagner Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography for Melanoma Staging: Refining the Indications Ann. Surg. Oncol., April 1, 2006; 13(4): 444 - 446. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Brady, T. Akhurst, K. Spanknebel, S. Hilton, M. Gonen, A. Patel, and S. Larson Utility of Preoperative [(18)]F Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography Scanning in High-Risk Melanoma Patients Ann. Surg. Oncol., April 1, 2006; 13(4): 525 - 532. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Reinhardt, A. Y. Joe, U. Jaeger, A. Huber, A. Matthies, J. Bucerius, R. Roedel, H. Strunk, T. Bieber, H.-J. Biersack, 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., March 1, 2006; 24(7): 1178 - 1187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. E. Finkelstein, J. A. Carrasquillo, J. M. Hoffman, B. Galen, P. Choyke, D. E. White, S. A. Rosenberg, and R. M. Sherry A Prospective Analysis of Positron Emission Tomography and Conventional Imaging for Detection of Stage IV Metastatic Melanoma in Patients Undergoing Metastasectomy Ann. Surg. Oncol., August 1, 2004; 11(8): 731 - 738. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Wagner Editorial: A Role for FDG-PET in the Surgical Management of Stage IV Melanoma Ann. Surg. Oncol., August 1, 2004; 11(8): 721 - 722. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P T Finger, M Kurli, P Wesley, L Tena, K R Kerr, and A Pavlick Whole body PET/CT imaging for detection of metastatic choroidal melanoma Br. J. Ophthalmol., August 1, 2004; 88(8): 1095 - 1097. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Alonso, M. Martinez, L. Delgado, A. De Leon, D. De Boni, G. Lago, M. Garces, F. Fontes, J. Espasandin, and J. Priario Staging of Regional Lymph Nodes in Melanoma Patients by Means of 99mTc-MIBI Scintigraphy J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2003; 44(10): 1561 - 1565. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
