Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic Performance of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Patients with Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract:

Background

Some studies reported the usefulness of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography (CT) in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze published data about the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with MCC.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of studies published through June 2013 regarding 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with MCC was performed. All retrieved studies were reviewed and qualitatively analyzed. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+ and LR−) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT in patients with MCC on a per examination-based analysis were calculated. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated to measure the accuracy of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT in these patients.

Results

Ten studies comprising 329 patients (549 scans) with MCC were included in the qualitative analysis (systematic review) and discussed. The quantitative analysis (meta-analysis) of six selected studies (including 92 patients with MCC) provided the following results on a per examination-based analysis: sensitivity was 90 % (95 % CI 80–96), specificity 98 % (95 % CI 90–100), LR+ 12 (95 % CI 4.3–33.0), LR− 0.15 (95 % CI 0.08–0.28), and DOR 86.8 (95 % CI 23–327). The area under the summary ROC curve was 0.96. No significant statistical heterogeneity between the studies was found.

Conclusions

In patients with MCC, 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, being accurate methods in this setting. Nevertheless, the literature focusing on the use of PET and PET/CT in MCC still remains limited. Prospective studies are needed to substantiate the high diagnostic accuracy of these methods in MCC.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Senchenkov A, Moran SL. Merkel cell carcinoma: diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:771–778e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen PJ, Bowne WB, Jaques DP, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma: prognosis and treatment of patients from a single institution. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2300–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Han SY, North JP, Canavan T, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2012;26:1351–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Howle JR, Hughes TM, Gebski V, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma: an Australian perspective and the importance of addressing the regional lymph nodes in clinically node-negative patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67:33–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Enzenhofer E, Ubl P, Czerny C, et al. Imaging in patients with merkel cell carcinoma. J Skin Cancer. 2013;2013:973123.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Treglia G, Cason E, Fagioli G. Recent applications of nuclear medicine in diagnostics (first part). Ital J Med. 2010;4:84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine checklist for diagnostic studies appraisal. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o_1025. Accessed 30 April 2013.

  9. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, et al. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Siva S, Byrne K, Seel M, et al. 18F-FDG PET provides high-impact and powerful prognostic stratification in the staging of merkel cell carcinoma: a 15-year institutional experience. J Nucl Med. 2013;. doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.116814.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ibrahim SF, Ahronowitz I, McCalmont TH, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography imaging in the management of merkel cell carcinoma: a single-institution retrospective study. Dermatol Surg. 2013;. doi:10.1111/dsu.12246.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hawryluk EB, O’Regan KN, Sheehy N, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging in Merkel cell carcinoma: a study of 270 scans in 97 patients at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68:592–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Colgan MB, Tarantola TI, Weaver AL, et al. The predictive value of imaging studies in evaluating regional lymph node involvement in Merkel cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67:1250–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lu Y, Fleming SE, Fields RC, et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 111In pentetreotide scan for detection of Merkel cell carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:759–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maury G, Dereure O, Du-Thanh A, et al. 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. 2011;25:1420–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Concannon R, Larcos GS, Veness M. The impact of (18)F-FDG PET–CT scanning for staging and management of Merkel cell carcinoma: results from Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:76–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Peloschek P, Novotny C, Mueller-Mang C, et al. Diagnostic imaging in Merkel cell carcinoma: lessons to learn from 16 cases with correlation of sonography, CT, MRI and PET. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73:317–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Belhocine T, Pierard GE, Frühling J, et al. Clinical added-value of 18FDG PET in neuroendocrine-merkel cell carcinoma. Oncol Rep. 2006;16:347–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Iagaru A, Quon A, McDougall IR, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma: is there a role for 2-deoxy-2-[f-18]fluoro-d-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography? Mol Imaging Biol. 2006;8:212–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mirk P, Treglia G, Salsano M, et al. Comparison between F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and sentinel lymph node biopsy for regional lymph nodal staging in patients with melanoma: a review of the literature. Radiol Res Pract. 2011;2011:912504.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Treglia G, Castaldi P, Rufini V, et al. Diagnostic performance of Gallium-68 somatostatin receptor PET and PET/CT in patients with thoracic and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a meta-analysis. Endocrine. 2012;42:80–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Treglia G, Sadeghi R. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews on PET and PET/CT in oncology: the state of the art. Clin Transl Imaging. 2013;1:73–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/mcc.pdf. Accessed on 23 July 2013.

  25. Ratib O. PET/MRI: a new era in multimodality molecular imaging. Clin Transl Imaging. 2013;1:5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pace L, Nicolai E, Aiello M, et al. Whole-body PET/MRI in oncology: current status and clinical applications. Clin Transl Imaging. 2013;1:31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors have received no funding and declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Center, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, via Ospedale, 12, 6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland

    Giorgio Treglia & Luca Giovanella

  2. Nuclear Medicine Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Vahid Reza Dabbagh Kakhki & Ramin Sadeghi

Authors
  1. Giorgio Treglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vahid Reza Dabbagh Kakhki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luca Giovanella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ramin Sadeghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgio Treglia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Treglia, G., Dabbagh Kakhki, V.R., Giovanella, L. et al. Diagnostic Performance of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Patients with Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Clin Dermatol 14, 437–447 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-013-0040-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-013-0040-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation