Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography for metastatic detection in melanoma patients

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 

  2. Steinert HC, Huch-Böni RA, Buck, A, et al. Malignant melanoma: staging with whole-body positron emission tomography and 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose.Radiology 1995;195:705–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Böni R, Huch-Böni RA, Steinert H, von Schulthess GK, Burg G. Staging of metastatic melanoma by whole-body positron emission tomography using 2-fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose.Br J Dermatol 1995;132:556–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Macfarlane DJ, Sondak V, Johnson T, Wahl RL. Prospective evaluation of 2-[18F]-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in staging of regional lymph nodes in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma.J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1770–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rinne D, Baum RP, Hör G, Kaufmann R. Primary staging and follow-up of high risk melanoma patients with whole-body18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: results of a prospective study of 100 patients.Cancer 1998;82:1664–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jadvar H, Johnson DL, Segall GM. The effect of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on the management of cutaneous malignant melanoma.Clin Nucl Med 2000;25: 48–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Acland KM, O’Doherty MJ, Russell-Jones R. The value of positron emission tomography scanning in the detection of subclinical metastatic melanoma.J Am Acad Dermatol 2000;42:606–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Tyler DS, Onaitis M, Kherani A, et al. Positron emission tomography scanning in malignant melanoma: clinical utility in patients with stage III disease.Cancer 2000;89:1019–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Eigtved A, Andersson AP, Dhalstrom K, 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. Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma.Arch Surg 1992;127:392–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McMasters KM, Sondak VK, Sotze MT, Ross MI. Recent advances in melanoma staging and therapy.Ann Surg Oncol 1999; 6:467–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gershenwald JE, Thompson W, Mansfield PF, et al. Multi-institutional melanoma lymphatic mapping experience: the prognostic value of sentinel lymph node status in 612 stage I or II melanoma patients.J Clin Oncol 1999;17:976–83.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Larson SM, Weiden PL, Grunbaum Z, et al. Positron imaging feasibility studies II: characteristics of 2-deoxyglucose uptake in rodent and canine neoplasms.J Nucl Med 1981;22:875–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoh CK, Hawkins RA, Glaspy JH, et al. Cancer detection with whole-body PET using 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose.J. Comput Assist Tomogr 1993;17:582–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong S-J, Atkins MB, Casciinelli N, Coit DG. 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 

  17. Krug B, Dietlein M, Groth W, 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 

  18. Wong CS, Valk P, Ariannejad M, et al. Impact of FDG-PET on management of patients with melanoma (abstract).J Nucl Med 2000;41(Suppl):282.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wagner JD, Schauwecker D, Hutchins G, Coleman JJ III. Initial assessment of positron emission tomography for detection of nonpalpable regional lymphatic metastases in melanoma.J Surg Oncol 1997;64:181–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wagner JD, Schauwecker D, Davidson D, et al. Prospective study of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomograpy imaging of lymph node basins in melanoma patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy.J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1508–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Acland KM, Healy C, Calonje E, et al. Comparison of positron emission tomography scanning and sentinel node biopsy in the detection of micrometastasis of primary cutaneous malignant melanoma.J Clin Oncol 2001;19:2674–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lewis P, Griffin S, Marsden P, et al. Whole-body18F-fluorode-oxyglucose positron emission tomography in preoperative evaluation of lung cancer.Lancet 1994;344:1265–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoh CK, Glaspy J, Rosen P, et al. Whole-body FDG-PET imaging for staging of Hodgkin’s disease and lymphoma.J Nucl Med 1997;38:343–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Health Care Financing Administration. Decision memorandum posted concerning Medicare coverage of FDG positron emission tomography (No. CAG-00065), 12/00 update. Available at: http:// www.cms.hhs.gov/coverage/8b3-hh2.asp. Accessed July 25, 2001.

  25. Charron M, Beyer T, Bohnen NN, et al. Image analysis in patients with cancer studied with a combined PET and CT scanner.Clin Nucl Med 2000;25:905–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Israel O, Keidar Z, Iosilevsky G, Bettman L, Sachs J, Frenkel A. The fusion of anatomic and physiologic imaging in the management of patients with cancer.Semin Nucl Med 2001;31:191–205.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California

    Susan M. Swetter MD

  2. Nuclear Medicine Service, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California

    George M. Segall MD

  3. Department of Dermatology, Stanford University Medical Center, 900 Blake Wilbur Dr., W0069, 94305, Stanford, CA

    Susan M. Swetter MD & Lisa A. Carroll MD

  4. Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California

    George M. Segall MD

  5. Department of Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California

    Denise L. Johnson MD

Authors
  1. Susan M. Swetter MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa A. Carroll MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denise L. Johnson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. George M. Segall MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan M. Swetter MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Swetter, S.M., Carroll, L.A., Johnson, D.L. et al. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography for metastatic detection in melanoma patients. Annals of Surgical Oncology 9, 646–653 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02574480

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02574480

Key Words

Search

Navigation