Abstract
Introduction
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the accuracy of FDG-PET in staging and restaging of cutaneous melanoma.
Methods
Systematic methods were used to identify, select, and evaluate the methodologic quality of the studies as well as to summarize the overall findings of sensitivity and specificity. The search strategy consisted of identifying studies published between 2000 and 2006. Inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of FDG-PET in staging/restaging of cutaneous melanoma. The results were compared and pooled with a meta-analysis published previously that included studies published until 1999. The meta-analysis included 95% confidence intervals (CI) of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood-ratio (LR), and diagnostic-odds-ratio (DOR).
Results
The quantitative meta-analysis included 24 studies that were analysed in two groups: eight studies were included only in the regional staging analysis (group I), 13 studies were included only in the detection of distant metastases analysis (group II), and three studies were included in both analyses. Compliance with the methodologic-quality criteria was acceptable. We analysed the results of data presented in patients, lesions, basins, lymph-nodes, areas, and scans. Regarding the performance of FDG-PET in the detection of metastases, the pooled studies presented homogeneity for the negative-LR (0.15; 95% CI, 0.10–0.22) when analyzing lesions. When analyzing scans, there was global homogeneity for specificity (0.86; 95% CI, 0.77–0.92), positive-LR (5.86; 95% CI, 3.64–9.43), and DOR (37.89; 95% CI, 15.80–90.86). The pooled studies presented heterogeneity for the other items analysed. Regarding the detection of regional metastases, when analyzing lymph-nodes there was global homogeneity for specificity (0.99; 95% CI, 0.97–0.99; P = 0.101). The meta-regression evidenced that the variable that most influenced the DOR of the different studies and that can explain the heterogeneity was the year of publication; this may be related to the evolution of PET technology and an improvement of sensitivity/specificity.
Conclusion
FDG-PET is not useful in the evaluation of regional metastases, as it does not detect microscopic disease. However, FDG-PET could be useful in the detection of distant metastases, and could suggest its utility in the management of patients with cutaneous melanoma.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Melanoma. National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network: Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology-v1. 2005.
ACS. American Cancer Society: Cancer Factors and Figures 2006. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society 2006. Also available online. Last accessed August 7, 2006.
AJCC. Melanoma of the skin. In: American Joint Committee on Cancer: AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002. p. 209–20.
Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Atkins MB, et al. A new American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma. Cancer. 2000;88:1484–91.
Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3635–48.
Mijnhout GS, Hoekstra OS, van Tulder MW, Teule GJ, Deville WL. Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in melanoma patients. Cancer. 2001;91:1530–42.
Schwimmer J, Essner R, Patel A, et al. A review of the literature for whole-body FDG PET in the management of patients with melanoma. Q J Nucl Med. 2000;44:153–67.
Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:380–7.
Paquet P, Henry F, Belhocine T, et al. An appraisal of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for melanoma staging. Dermatology. 2000;200:167–9.
Klein M, Freedman N, Lotem M, et al. Contribution of whole body F-18-FDG-PET and lymphoscintigraphy to the assessment of regional and distant metastases in cutaneous malignant melanoma. A pilot study. Nuklearmedizin. 2000;39:56–61.
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.
Eigtved A, Andersson AP, Dahlstrom K, et al. Use of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of silent metastases from malignant melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:70–5.
Tyler DS, Onaitis M, Kherani A, et al. Positron emission tomography scanning in malignant melanoma. Cancer. 2000;89:1019–25.
Acland KM, O’Doherty MJ, Russell-Jones R. The value of positron emission tomography scanning in the detection of subclinical metastatic melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;42:606–11.
Acland KM, Healy C, Calonje E, et al. Comparison of positron emission tomography scanning and sentinel node biopsy in the detection of micrometastases of primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2674–8.
Reinhardt MJ, Kensy J, Frohmann JP, et al. Value of tumour marker S-100B in melanoma patients: a comparison to 18F-FDG PET and clinical data. Nuklearmedizin. 2002;41:143–7.
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;12:479–90.
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;9:646–53.
Belhocine T, Pierard G, De Labrassinne M, Lahaye T, Rigo P. Staging of regional nodes in AJCC stage I and II melanoma: 18FDG PET imaging versus sentinel node detection. Oncologist. 2002;7:271–8.
Longo MI, Lazaro P, Bueno C, Carreras JL, Montz R. Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging versus sentinel node biopsy in the primary staging of melanoma patients. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29:245–8.
Fink AM, Holle-Robatsch S, Herzog N, et al. Positron emission tomography is not useful in detecting metastasis in the sentinel lymph node in patients with primary malignant melanoma stage I and II. Melanoma Res. 2004;14:141–5.
Hafner J, Schmid MH, Kempf W, et al. Baseline staging in cutaneous malignant melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150:677–86.
Finkelstein SE, Carrasquillo JA, Hoffman JM, 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;11:731–8.
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.
Wagner JD, Schauwecker D, Davidson D, et al. Inefficacy of F-18 fluorodeoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography scans for initial evaluation in early-stage cutaneous melanoma. Cancer. 2005;104:570–9.
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;34:1420–7.
Boni R, Boni RA, Steinert H, et al. Staging of metastatic melanoma by whole-body positron emission tomography using 2-fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Br J Dermatol. 1995;132:556–62.
Steinert HC, Huch Boni RA, Buck A, et al. Malignant melanoma: staging with whole-body positron emission tomography and 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology. 1995;195:705–9.
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;131:1394–8.
Valk PE, Pounds TR, Tesar RD, Hopkins DM, Haseman MK. Cost-effectiveness of PET imaging in clinical oncology. Nucl Med Biol. 1996;23:737–43.
Damian DL, Fulham MJ, Thompson E, Thompson JF. Positron emission tomography in the detection and management of metastatic melanoma. Melanoma Res. 1996;6:325–9.
Wagner JD, Schauwecker D, Hutchins G, Coleman JJ 3rd. Initial assessment of positron emission tomography for detection of nonpalpable regional lymphatic metastases in melanoma. J Surg Oncol. 1997;64:181–9.
Hsueh EC, Gupta RK, Glass EC, Yee R, Qi K, Morton DL. Positron emission tomography plus serum TA90 immune complex assay for detection of occult metastatic melanoma. J Am Coll Surg. 1998;187:191–7.
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;227:764–9.
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;16:1770–6.
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;82:1664–71.
Wagner JD, Schauwecker D, Davidson D, et al. Prospective study of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging of lymph node basins in melanoma patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1508–15.
Dietlein M, Krug B, Groth W, et al. Positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in advanced stages of malignant melanoma: a comparison of ultrasonographic and radiological methods of diagnosis. Nucl Med Commun. 1999;20:255–61.
Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, et al. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1177–89.
Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2001;285:914–24.
Delgado-Bolton RC, Fernández-Pérez C, González-Maté A, Carreras JL. Meta-analysis of the performance of 18F-FDG PET in primary tumor detection in unknown primary tumors. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1301–14.
Kent DL, Larson EB. Disease, level of impact, and quality of research methods. Three dimensions of clinical efficacy assessment applied to magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 1992;27:245–54.
Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88–94.
Thornbury JR, Kido DK, Mushlin AI, Phelps CE, Mooney C, Fryback DG. Increasing the scientific quality of clinical efficacy studies of magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 1991;26:829–35.
Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–316.
Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:31.
Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–63.
Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347:363–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Jiménez-Requena and Delgado-Bolton have contributed equally to this work.
The first author is currently a 4th-year resident of Nuclear Medicine in the Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(DOC 370 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jiménez-Requena, F., Delgado-Bolton, R.C., Fernández-Pérez, C. et al. Meta-analysis of the performance of 18F-FDG PET in cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37, 284–300 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1224-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1224-8