Malignancy Rate of Indeterminate Findings on FDG-PET/CT in Cutaneous Melanoma Patients.
computed tomography
immunotherapy
melanoma
positron emission tomography
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 May 2021
15 May 2021
Historique:
received:
11
04
2021
revised:
09
05
2021
accepted:
12
05
2021
entrez:
2
6
2021
pubmed:
3
6
2021
medline:
3
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of We aimed to investigate the malignancy rate of indeterminate findings on FDG-PET/CT in metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients. This single-center retrospective study included cutaneous melanoma patients who underwent FDG-PET/CT in clinical routine between 2015 and 2017 with findings reported as indeterminate and therefore requiring further evaluation. The dignity of the included findings was determined by subsequent imaging and, if required, additional histopathology. The impact of the outcome on the clinical management was also reported. A total of 842 FDG-PET/CT reports of 244 metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients were reviewed. Sixty indeterminate findings were included. Almost half of all indeterminate findings were lymph nodes, lung nodules and cerebral lesions. In total, 43.3% of all included findings proved to be malignant. 81% of all malignant lesions were metastases of cutaneous melanoma, while 19% of all malignant lesions could be attributed to other primary malignancies, such as lung, breast, thyroid and colorectal cancers. Malignant findings influenced clinical management in 60% of the cases. Indeterminate findings on FDG-PET/CT in metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients should be further investigated. Almost one out of every two indeterminate findings on FDG-PET/CT is malignant. The majority of the findings are melanoma manifestations, however, in a significant percentage, other primary tumors are found. Upon verification, patient management is changed in most cases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The use of
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to investigate the malignancy rate of indeterminate findings on FDG-PET/CT in metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients.
METHODS
METHODS
This single-center retrospective study included cutaneous melanoma patients who underwent FDG-PET/CT in clinical routine between 2015 and 2017 with findings reported as indeterminate and therefore requiring further evaluation. The dignity of the included findings was determined by subsequent imaging and, if required, additional histopathology. The impact of the outcome on the clinical management was also reported.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 842 FDG-PET/CT reports of 244 metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients were reviewed. Sixty indeterminate findings were included. Almost half of all indeterminate findings were lymph nodes, lung nodules and cerebral lesions. In total, 43.3% of all included findings proved to be malignant. 81% of all malignant lesions were metastases of cutaneous melanoma, while 19% of all malignant lesions could be attributed to other primary malignancies, such as lung, breast, thyroid and colorectal cancers. Malignant findings influenced clinical management in 60% of the cases.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Indeterminate findings on FDG-PET/CT in metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients should be further investigated. Almost one out of every two indeterminate findings on FDG-PET/CT is malignant. The majority of the findings are melanoma manifestations, however, in a significant percentage, other primary tumors are found. Upon verification, patient management is changed in most cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34063555
pii: diagnostics11050883
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11050883
pmc: PMC8156636
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Eur J Cancer. 2020 Feb;126:141-158
pubmed: 31928887
PET Clin. 2020 Jan;15(1):11-22
pubmed: 31735298
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug;14(8):463-482
pubmed: 28374786
Am J Surg. 2021 Apr;221(4):737-740
pubmed: 32354604
Curr Radiopharm. 2020;13(1):24-31
pubmed: 31749440
Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Jun;26(6):1860-1868
pubmed: 30911946
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jan;46(1):54-64
pubmed: 30269155
Yale J Biol Med. 2020 Mar 27;93(1):207-213
pubmed: 32226349
J Nucl Med. 2020 Jul;61(7):943-950
pubmed: 32444375
Oncotarget. 2019 May 21;10(36):3373-3384
pubmed: 31164959
Curr Radiopharm. 2020;13(1):6-13
pubmed: 31749438
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Nov;47(12):2787-2795
pubmed: 32296882
Nuklearmedizin. 2020 Jun;59(3):228-234
pubmed: 32259852
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Aug;44(8):1312-1318
pubmed: 28315947
Curr Oncol Rep. 2018 Sep 24;20(11):87
pubmed: 30250984
World J Nucl Med. 2019 Apr-Jun;18(2):176-182
pubmed: 31040750
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Nov;47(12):2776-2786
pubmed: 32338306
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014;810:120-40
pubmed: 25207363
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2020 Sep;153:103044
pubmed: 32673997
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Aug 15;26(16):4414-4425
pubmed: 32253232
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Feb 06;12(2):
pubmed: 32041105
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2019 Sep;50(3):460-469.e1
pubmed: 31204313