Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET and PET/CT Imaging in Melanoma

  • Chapter
Positron Emission Tomography

  • 2309 Accesses

Summary

PET is a sensitive and specific technique for the detection of melanoma, but micrometastases and lesions smaller than 10 mm may not be detected. PET is more sensitive than CT for detection of metastases in subcutaneous sites, lymph nodes, abdomen, and skeleton, but CT is equivalent to, or more sensitive than, PET for detecting small pulmonary lesions. Contrast-enhanced MRI remains the preferred method for detection of brain metastases. Falsepositive PET findings may be seen at surgical sites and in inflammatory lesions and may also be seen in some benign tumors. Clinical correlation significantly improves the specificity of PET.

PET is indicated for determining the extent of known metastatic disease, especially if patients are potentially operable. Approximately 4% to 24% of patients who are thought to have resectable limited disease based on physical examination and conventional diagnostic tests are found to have nonresectable disease by PET. Conversely, in patients who are erroneously considered to have nonresectable disease by conventional diagnostics, PET may show limited disease that is potentially operable.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Surveillance research. Estimated new cancer cases for selected cancer sites by state, US. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, Inc., 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Howe HL, Wingo PA, Thun MJ, Ries LA, Rosenberg HM, Feigal EG, Edwards BK. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer (1973 through 1998), featuring cancers with recent increasing trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:824–842.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McKean-Cowdin R, Feigelson HS, Ross RK, Pike MC, Henderson BE. Declining cancer rates in the 1990s. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2258–2268.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Swetter SM, Jung S, Harvell JD, Egbert BM. Increased proportion of lentigo maligna and lentigo maligna melanoma subtypes in the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System and Stanford University Medical Center. J Invest Dermatol 2002;119:245.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Buzaid AC, Ross MI, Balch CM, Soong S, McCarthy WH, Tinoco L, et al. Critical analysis of the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma and proposal of a new staging system. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:1039–1051

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chang AE, Karnell LH, Menck HR. The National Cancer Data Base report on cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma: a summary of 84,836 cases from the past decade. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Cancer (Phila) 1998;83:1664–1678.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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;19:3635–3648.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. NIH Consensus conference. Diagnosis and treatment of early melanoma. JAMA 1992;268:1314–1319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heaton KM, Sussman JJ, Gershenwald JE, Lee JE, Reintgen DS, Mansfield PF, Ross MI. Surgical margins and prognostic factors in patients with thick (>4mm) primary melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 1998;5:322–328.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mraz-Gernhard S, Sagebiel RW, Kashani-Sabet M, Miller JR III, Leong SP. Prediction of sentinel lymph node micrometastasis by histological features in primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. Arch Dermatol 1998;134:983–987.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cascinelli N, Morabito A, Santinami M, MacKie RM, Belli F. Immediate or delayed dissection of regional nodes in patients with melanoma of the trunk: a randomised trial. WHO Melanoma Programme. Lancet 1998;351:793–796.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, Economou JS, Cagle LA, Storm FK, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 1992;127:392–399.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. White RR, Tyler DS. Management of node-positive melanoma in the era of sentinel node biopsy. Surg Oncol 2000;9:119–125.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wahl RL, Hutchins GD, Buchsbaum DJ, Liebert M, Grossman HB, Fisher S. Feasibility studies for cancer imaging with positron-emission tomography. Cancer (Phila) 1991;67:1544–1550.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Blessing C, Feine U, Geiger L, Carl M, Rassner G, Fierlbeck G. Positron emission tomography and ultrasonography. A comparative retrospective study assessing the diagnostic validity in lymph node metastases of malignant melanoma. Arch Dermatol 1995;131:1394–1398.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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;16:1770–1776.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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;64:181–189.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wagner JD, Schauwecker D, Davidson D, Coleman JJ III, Saxman S, Hutchins G, et al. Prospective study of fluorodeoxyglucosepositron emission tomography imaging of lymph node basins in melanoma patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1508–1515.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Crippa F, Leutner M, Belli F, Gallino F, Greco M, Pilotti S, Cascinelli N, Bombardieri E. Which kinds of lymph node metastases can FDG-PET detect? A clinical study in melanoma. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1491–1494.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Acland KM, Healy C, Calonje E, O’Doherty M, Nunan T, Page C, Higgins E, Russell-Jones R. Comparison of positron emission tomography scanning and sentinel node biopsy in the detection of micrometastases of primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:2674–2678.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Havenga K, Cobben DCP, Oyen WJG, Nienhuijs S, Hoekstra HJ, Ruers TJM, Wobbes TH. Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and sentinel lymph node biopsy in staging primary cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003;29:662–664.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hafner J, Schmid MH, Kempf W, Burg G, Kunzi W, Meuli-Simmen C, et al. Baseline staging in cutaneous malignant melanoma. Br J Dermatol 2004;150:677–686.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wagner JD, Schauwecker DS, Davidson D, Wenck S, Jung SH, Hutchins G. FDG-PET sensitivity for melanoma lymph node metastases is dependent on tumor volume. J Surg Oncol 2001;77:237–242.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(4):283–286.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Finkelstein SE, Carrasquillo JA, Hoffman JM, Galen B, Choyke P, White DE, et al. A prospective analysis of positron emission tomography and conventional imaging for detection of stage IV metastatic melanoma in patients undergoing metastasectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:731–738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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;9:646–653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Acland KM, O’Doherty MJ, Russell-Jones R. The value of positron emission tomography scanning in the detection of subclinical melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000;42:606–611.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tyler DS, Onaitis M, Kherani A, Hata A, Nicholson E, Keogan M, et al. Positron emission tomography scanning in malignant melanoma. Cancer (Phila) 2000;89:1019–1025.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 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;27:70–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 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;227:764–769; discussion 769–771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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. Cancer (Phila) 1998;82:1664–1670.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Damian DL, Fulham MJ, Thompson E, Thompson JF. Positron emission tomography in the detection and management of metastatic melanoma. Melanoma Res 1996;6:325–329.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Steinert HC, Huch Boni RA, Buck A, Boni R, Berthold T, Marincek B, et al. Malignant melanoma: staging with whole-body positron emission tomography and 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology 1995;195:705–709.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 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;41:446–452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 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;34:1420–1427

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Gulec SA, Faries MB, Lee CC, Kirgan D, Glass C, Morton DL, Essner R. The role of fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of patients with metastatic melanoma: impact on surgical decision making. Clin Nucl Med 2003;28:961–965.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Valk PE, Pounds TR, Tesar RD, Hopkins DM, Haseman MK. Costeffectiveness of PET imaging in clinical oncology. Nucl Med Biol 1996;23:737–743.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuclear Medicine Services, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, A

    George M. Segall MD

  2. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    George M. Segall MD

  3. Dermatology Services, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, A

    Susan M. Swetter MD

  4. Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    Susan M. Swetter MD

Authors
  1. George M. Segall MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan M. Swetter MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Northern California PET Imaging Center, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Peter E. Valk MB, BS, FRACP

  2. Positron Emission Tomography, Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Dominique Delbeke MD, PhD (Professor and Director of Nuclear Medicine) (Professor and Director of Nuclear Medicine)

  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia

    Dale L. Bailey PhD (Associate Professor of Medicine) (Associate Professor of Medicine)

  4. Cancer Imaging and Tracer Development Program, The University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, TN, USA

    David W. Townsend PhD (Director) (Director)

  5. Department of Radiological Sciences, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Clinical PET Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital Trust, London, UK

    Michael N. Maisey BSc, MD, FRCR, FRCP (Professor of Emeritus) (Professor of Emeritus)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Segall, G.M., Swetter, S.M. (2006). PET and PET/CT Imaging in Melanoma. In: Valk, P.E., Delbeke, D., Bailey, D.L., Townsend, D.W., Maisey, M.N. (eds) Positron Emission Tomography. Springer, London . https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-187-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-187-3_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-971-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-187-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation