Melanoma, Myeloma, and Sarcoma

  • E. Edmund Kim
  • Franklin C. L. Wong


Cutaneous melanoma is a readily curable tumor, with 85% of diagnosed patients enjoying long-term survival following simple surgical excision. There has been a steady increase in melanoma incidence over the past century. In the United States, melanoma is diagnosed in at least 54,200 people a year, approximately 15 in 100,000 (Jemal et al. CA Cancer J Clin 53:5–26, 2003). Disseminated melanoma is a devastating illness with limited effective treatment options, prompting the evolution of efforts designed to identify metastatic disease early and to develop novel biologic therapies. The application of immunotherapy has so far provided benefit to only a small percentage of patients. In the majority of patients with metastatic disease, many of whom are young, the chemotherapy or biologic therapy is unsuccessful.


Positron Emission Tomography Standard Uptake Value Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumor Uveal Melanoma Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A, et al. Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53:5–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scott IU, Murray TG, Hughes JR. Evaluation of imaging techniques for detection of extraocular extension of choroidal melanoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:897–901.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Modorati G, Brancato R, Paganelli G, et al. Immunoscintigraphy with three step monoclonal pretargeting technique in diagnosis of uveal melanoma: preliminary results. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78:19–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haynie GD, Shen TT, Gragoudas ES, et al. Flow cytometric analysis of peripheral blood lymphocytes in patients with choroidal melanoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;124:357–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kusumoto S, Jinnai I, Itoh K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging patterns in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Hematol. 1997;99:649–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fletcher J, Kozakewich H, Hoffer F, et al. Diagnostic relevance of clonal chromosome aberrations in malignant soft tissue tumors. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:436–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conlon K, Casper E, Brennan M. Primary gastrointestinal sarcomas: analysis of prognostic variables. Ann Surg Oncol. 1995;2:26–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    LaIuaglia M, Heller G, Ghavimi F, et al. The effect of age at diagnosis on outcome in rhabdomyosarcoma. Cancer. 1994;73:109–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop. 1980;153:106–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bloem JL, Taminian AHM, Euldenink F, et al. Radiologic staging of primary bone sarcoma: MRI, scintigraphy, angiography and CT correlated with pathologic examination. Radiology. 1988;169:805–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kagan R, Witt T, Bines S, et al. Gallium-67 scanning for malignant melanoma. Cancer. 1998;61:272–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaiff V, Hicks RJ, Ware RE, et al. Evaluation of high-risk melanoma: comparison of F-18 FDG PET and high-dose Ga-67 SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002;29:506–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tyler DS, Onaitis M, Kherani A, et al. Positron emission tomography scanning in malignant melanoma. Cancer. 2000;89:1019–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crippa F, Leutner M, Belli F, et al. Which kinds of lymph node metastases can FDG PET detect? A clinical study in melanoma. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1491–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steinert HC, Voellmy DR, Trachsel C, et al. Planar coincidence scintigraphy and PET in staging malignant melanoma. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1892–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Burger C. Quantitative PET studies in pretreated melanoma patients: a comparison of 6-[F-18] fluoro-L-dopa with F-18 FDG and O-15 water using compartment and noncompartment analysis. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:248–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diuie BGM, Waxman AD, D’Agnolo A, et al. Whole-body F-18 FDG-PET identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1457–63.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwarzbach M, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Willeke F, et al. Clinical value of F-18 FDG-PET imaging in soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Surg. 2000;231:380–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strauss LG. F-18 deoxyglucose and false-positive results: a major problem in the diagnostics of oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996;23:1409–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Schwarzbach M, et al. Dynamic F-18 PET-FDG studies in patients with primary and recurrent soft tissue sarcomas: impact on diagnosis and correlation with grading. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:713–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eary JF, Mankoff DA. Tumor metabolic rates in sarcoma using FDG-PET. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:250–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwarzbach M, Wideke F, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, et al. Functional imaging and detection of local recurrence in soft tissue sarcomas by PET. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:250–4.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iagaru A, Quon A, Johnson D, Gambhir SS, McDougall IR. 2-Deoxy-2-F-18 fluor-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the management of melanoma. Mol Imaging Biol. 2007;9(1):50–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic RadiologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Medical SchoolHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Graduate School of Convergence Science and TechnologySeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Departments of Nuclear Medicine and NeurooncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations