Routine FDG PET-CT in patients with a high-risk localized melanoma has a high predictive positive value for nodal disease and high negative predictive value for the presence of distant metastases

Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

Volumn 26, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1431-1435

  Wagner, T ^a,b   Chevreau, C ^c   Meyer, N ^d   Mourey, L ^c   Courbon, F ^c   Zerdoud, S ^c  

^a CHU PURPAN   (France)

^b ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c INSTITUT CLAUDIUS REGAUD   (France)

^d TOULOUSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE;

ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISTANT METASTASIS; FEMALE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; LYMPHADENOPATHY; MALE; MELANOMA; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR LOCALIZATION;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MELANOMA; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS;

EID: 84867571150     PISSN: 09269959     EISSN: 14683083     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04312.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E,. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60: 277-300.
2. Balch CM, Soong SJ, Gershenwald JE, et al. Prognostic factors analysis of 17,600 melanoma patients: validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 3622-3634. (Pubitemid 32786275)
3. Balch CM, Murad TM, Soong SJ, Ingalls AL, Halpern NB, Maddox WA,. A multifactorial analysis of melanoma: prognostic histopathological features comparing Clark's and Breslow's staging methods. Ann Surg 1978; 188: 732-742.
4. Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong SJ, et al. New TNM melanoma staging system: linking biology and natural history to clinical outcomes. Semin Surg Oncol 2003; 21: 43-52. (Pubitemid 37127473)
5. Balch CM, Soong SJ, Murad TM, Ingalls AL, Maddox WA,. A multifactorial analysis of melanoma: III. Prognostic factors in melanoma patients with lymph node metastases (stage II). Ann Surg 1981; 193: 377-388. (Pubitemid 11114057)
6. Belhocine TZ, Scott AM, Even-Sapir E, Urbain JL, Essner R,. Role of nuclear medicine in the management of cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 957-967. (Pubitemid 46939948)
7. Brady MS, Akhurst T, Spanknebel K, et al. Utility of preoperative [(18)]f fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scanning in high-risk melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13: 525-532.
8. Fuster D, Chiang S, Johnson G, Schuchter LM, Zhuang H, Alavi A,. Is 18F-FDG PET more accurate than standard diagnostic procedures in the detection of suspected recurrent melanoma? J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 1323-1327. (Pubitemid 47618530)
9. Reinhardt MJ, Joe AY, Jaeger U, 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: 1178-1187. (Pubitemid 46638816)
10. Rinne D, Baum RP, Hor 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: 1664-1671. (Pubitemid 28208915)
11. Stas M, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. 18-FDG PET scan in the staging of recurrent melanoma: additional value and therapeutic impact. Melanoma Res 2002; 12: 479-490. (Pubitemid 35264725)
12. Clark PB, Soo V, Kraas J, Shen P, Levine EA,. Futility of fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography in initial evaluation of patients with T2 to T4 melanoma. Arch Surg 2006; 141: 284-288.
13. Hafner J, Schmid MH, Kempf W, et al. Baseline staging in cutaneous malignant melanoma. Br J Dermatol 2004; 150: 677-686. (Pubitemid 38586218)
14. Aloia TA, Gershenwald JE, Andtbacka RH, et al. Utility of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging staging before completion lymphadenectomy in patients with sentinel lymph node-positive melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 2858-2865. (Pubitemid 46630586)
15. Gold JS, Jaques DP, Busam KJ, Brady MS, Coit DG,. Yield and predictors of radiologic studies for identifying distant metastases in melanoma patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14: 2133-2140. (Pubitemid 46988267)
16. Wagner T, Meyer N, Zerdoud S, et al. FDG PET fails to detect distant metastases at initial staging of melanoma patients with metastatic involvement of sentinel lymph nod. Br J Dermatol 2011; 164: 1235-1240.
17. Vereecken P, Laporte M, Petein M, Steels E, Heenen M,. Evaluation of extensive initial staging procedure in intermediate/high-risk melanoma patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2005; 19: 66-73. (Pubitemid 40268143)
18. Strobel K, Dummer R, Husarik DB, Perez Lago M, Hany TF, Steinert HC,. High-risk melanoma: accuracy of FDG PET/CT with added CT morphologic information for detection of metastases. Radiology 2007; 244: 566-574. (Pubitemid 47080890)
19. El-Maraghi RH, Kielar AZ,. PET vs sentinel lymph node biopsy for staging melanoma: a patient intervention, comparison, outcome analysis. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5: 924-931. (Pubitemid 352020694)
20. Scoggins CR, Martin RC, Ross MI, et al. Factors associated with false-negative sentinel lymph node biopsy in melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17: 709-717.
21. Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 1992; 127: 392-399.
22. Miranda EP, Gertner M, Wall J, et al. Routine imaging of asymptomatic melanoma patients with metastasis to sentinel lymph nodes rarely identifies systemic disease. Arch Surg 2004; 139: 831-836 discussion 6-7.