Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
OtherClinical Investigations

Is 18F-FDG PET More Accurate Than Standard Diagnostic Procedures in the Detection of Suspected Recurrent Melanoma?

David Fuster, Stephen Chiang, Germaine Johnson, Lynn M. Schuchter, Hongming Zhuang and Abass Alavi
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2004, 45 (8) 1323-1327;
David Fuster
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen Chiang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Germaine Johnson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lynn M. Schuchter
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hongming Zhuang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Abass Alavi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    (A) Whole-body PET scan of a patient with a recently removed stage II melanoma of the right arm shows several lesions in the right hilum (large arrow), the liver, the left groin (dotted arrow), the lumbar spine, and the left ischium (small arrow). (B) CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis was able to identify only the liver metastases (right panel); PET showed the same lesions in the liver but detected an additional focus in the anterior right liver (arrowhead, left panel). The diagnosis of metastatic spread was further established by follow-up of the patient.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    Whole-body PET scan shows focal uptake in the apex of the right lung, in the same location as a 2-cm lesion observed on a prior chest CT scan (large arrow). PET also detected several lesions that extended to the midline in the left pelvis and were not found by other CPs (small arrow). These lesions were histologically confirmed to be lymph node metastases.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    A Comparison of PET and Body CT Results in the Detection of Active Melanoma in 115 Patients

    SitePETCT
    TNTPFNFPSE (%)SP (%)Acc (%)TNTPFNFPSE (%)SP (%)Acc (%)
    Lung68161255792835126222937077
    Liver84112—85100986710317778079
    Bone888—1100999986173129689
    Lymph node60304388959351191512568172
    Abdomen83622759796715314628482
    • TN = true negative; TP = true positive; FN = false negative; FP = false positive; SE = sensitivity; SP = specificity; Acc = accuracy.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 45 (8)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 45, Issue 8
August 1, 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is 18F-FDG PET More Accurate Than Standard Diagnostic Procedures in the Detection of Suspected Recurrent Melanoma?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Is 18F-FDG PET More Accurate Than Standard Diagnostic Procedures in the Detection of Suspected Recurrent Melanoma?
David Fuster, Stephen Chiang, Germaine Johnson, Lynn M. Schuchter, Hongming Zhuang, Abass Alavi
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2004, 45 (8) 1323-1327;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Is 18F-FDG PET More Accurate Than Standard Diagnostic Procedures in the Detection of Suspected Recurrent Melanoma?
David Fuster, Stephen Chiang, Germaine Johnson, Lynn M. Schuchter, Hongming Zhuang, Abass Alavi
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2004, 45 (8) 1323-1327;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • THIS MONTH IN JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging in Nodal Staging and Surveillance of Ocular Melanoma: Case Reports and Review of the Literature
  • Prospective Comparison of [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography in Patients With Melanoma With Palpable Lymph Node Metastases: Diagnostic Accuracy and Impact on Treatment
  • Role of Modern Imaging Techniques for Diagnosis of Infection in the Era of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography
  • Role of Nuclear Medicine in the Management of Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma
  • 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
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Cardiac Presynaptic Sympathetic Nervous Function Evaluated by Cardiac PET in Patients with Chronotropic Incompetence Without Heart Failure
  • Validation and Evaluation of a Vendor-Provided Head Motion Correction Algorithm on the uMI Panorama PET/CT System
  • Prognostic Role of 68Ga-PSMA11 PET–Based Response in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Taxane-Based Chemotherapy
Show more Clinical Investigations

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire