FLUOR-18-FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (FDG-PET) IN MALIGNANT MELANOMA: Diagnostic comparison with conventional imaging methods
AbstractPurpose: To assess the diagnostic value of fluor-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in screening for melanoma metastases.Material and Methods: The case records of 94 melanoma patients who had been examined by whole-body FDG-PET between 1995 and 1999 were evaluated r...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Acta radiologica (1987) 2000-09, Vol.41 (5), p.446-452 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 452 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 446 |
| container_title | Acta radiologica (1987) |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Krug, B. Dietlein, M. Groth, W. Stützer, H. Psaras, T. Gossmann, A. Scheidhauer, K. Schicha, H. Lackner, K. |
| description | AbstractPurpose: To assess the diagnostic value of fluor-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in screening for melanoma metastases.Material and Methods: The case records of 94 melanoma patients who had been examined by whole-body FDG-PET between 1995 and 1999 were evaluated retrospectively. Forty patients showed evidence of lymphogenous and 42 of hematogenous metastasis. The maximal interval between PET and the diagnostic procedure under comparison was 2 weeks. Confirmation of the findings was based on histology or the clinical or radiological course.Results: In 24 patients, all diagnostic examinations including CT had been performed within 2 weeks from PET. In no case did PET change the staging. In 13 patients, PET agreed with morphological diagnosis in the number of metastatically invaded organs. This included 3 patients without metastases. The estimated number of organs invaded by metastases was higher with PET in 5 patients and higher with morphological imaging techniques in 6 patients. Among the PET findings with higher or equivocal counts of organs with metastases there were 2 confirmed false-positive findings.Conclusion: In a selected patient population, FDG-PET was found to be inferior to CT for diagnosing lung and liver metastases. The supplementary use of FDG-PET is not generally of value once metastasis has been established. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/028418500127345668 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72308028</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1080_028418500127345668</sage_id><sourcerecordid>72308028</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-b515a9fe0886d6a6998782a069aa772600fe533fa1c67a6b5182b3b6462a51713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0c2O0zAQB3ALgdhSeAEOyAeE4BDWdmInWXGJ2jQbKR9Vm0rsKZqmTptVPoqdgngM3hjvttIekICTx9Lvb2tmEHpLyWdKPHJNmOdQjxNCmWs7XAjvGZpQQYhFHM6fo8kDsIygV-iV1vePkNOX6IpSQoUrnAn6tUg2-cog67HI52H-9S5KNrN8HeJlvo6LVZ7hMI3X69gURZ7m0SpY3t7hj4t5ZC3D4hOOM5wGSRxlQVbgNEyCLE-DGzxvYN8PemwqXA3dEVSjhx7_aMaDufffZT82Qw8tbjrYN_0ed3I8DDv9Gr2oodXyzeWcos0iLGa3VpJH8SxIrMrhbLS2nHLwa0k8T-wECN_3XI8BET6A6zIzhVpy266BVsIFYbjHtvZWOIIBpy61p-jD-d2jGr6dpB7LrtGVbFvo5XDSpctsM2Tm_RNSX1DGGDGQnWGlBq2VrMujMs2pnyUl5cPGyj83ZkLvLq-ftp3cPUUuKzLg_QWArqCtFfRVo5-cI6hrGp2i6zPTsJfl_XBSZrb67z9_OSeavh5UBwcJ7XioQP1f_DcWL7aR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>19612220</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>FLUOR-18-FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (FDG-PET) IN MALIGNANT MELANOMA: Diagnostic comparison with conventional imaging methods</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Taylor & Francis Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Krug, B. ; Dietlein, M. ; Groth, W. ; Stützer, H. ; Psaras, T. ; Gossmann, A. ; Scheidhauer, K. ; Schicha, H. ; Lackner, K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Krug, B. ; Dietlein, M. ; Groth, W. ; Stützer, H. ; Psaras, T. ; Gossmann, A. ; Scheidhauer, K. ; Schicha, H. ; Lackner, K.</creatorcontrib><description>AbstractPurpose: To assess the diagnostic value of fluor-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in screening for melanoma metastases.Material and Methods: The case records of 94 melanoma patients who had been examined by whole-body FDG-PET between 1995 and 1999 were evaluated retrospectively. Forty patients showed evidence of lymphogenous and 42 of hematogenous metastasis. The maximal interval between PET and the diagnostic procedure under comparison was 2 weeks. Confirmation of the findings was based on histology or the clinical or radiological course.Results: In 24 patients, all diagnostic examinations including CT had been performed within 2 weeks from PET. In no case did PET change the staging. In 13 patients, PET agreed with morphological diagnosis in the number of metastatically invaded organs. This included 3 patients without metastases. The estimated number of organs invaded by metastases was higher with PET in 5 patients and higher with morphological imaging techniques in 6 patients. Among the PET findings with higher or equivocal counts of organs with metastases there were 2 confirmed false-positive findings.Conclusion: In a selected patient population, FDG-PET was found to be inferior to CT for diagnosing lung and liver metastases. The supplementary use of FDG-PET is not generally of value once metastasis has been established.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0284-1851</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0455</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/028418500127345668</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11016764</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ACRAE3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: Informa UK Ltd</publisher><subject>Abdomen - diagnostic imaging ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Biological and medical sciences ; Dermatology ; Diagnostic Imaging ; False Positive Reactions ; Female ; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Liver Neoplasms - pathology ; Liver Neoplasms - secondary ; Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Lung Neoplasms - pathology ; Lung Neoplasms - secondary ; Lymphatic Metastasis - diagnostic imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Mass Screening ; Medical sciences ; Melanoma - diagnostic imaging ; Melanoma - pathology ; Melanoma - secondary ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Staging ; Neoplastic Cells, Circulating - pathology ; Radiopharmaceuticals ; Retrospective Studies ; Skin Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Tomography, Emission-Computed ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Tumors of the skin and soft tissue. Premalignant lesions ; Ultrasonography ; Whole-Body Irradiation</subject><ispartof>Acta radiologica (1987), 2000-09, Vol.41 (5), p.446-452</ispartof><rights>2000 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted 2000</rights><rights>Acta Radiologica</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-b515a9fe0886d6a6998782a069aa772600fe533fa1c67a6b5182b3b6462a51713</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/028418500127345668$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformahealthcare$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/028418500127345668$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformahealthcare$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,61194,61375</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1461753$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11016764$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Krug, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dietlein, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groth, W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stützer, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Psaras, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gossmann, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scheidhauer, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schicha, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lackner, K.</creatorcontrib><title>FLUOR-18-FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (FDG-PET) IN MALIGNANT MELANOMA: Diagnostic comparison with conventional imaging methods</title><title>Acta radiologica (1987)</title><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><description>AbstractPurpose: To assess the diagnostic value of fluor-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in screening for melanoma metastases.Material and Methods: The case records of 94 melanoma patients who had been examined by whole-body FDG-PET between 1995 and 1999 were evaluated retrospectively. Forty patients showed evidence of lymphogenous and 42 of hematogenous metastasis. The maximal interval between PET and the diagnostic procedure under comparison was 2 weeks. Confirmation of the findings was based on histology or the clinical or radiological course.Results: In 24 patients, all diagnostic examinations including CT had been performed within 2 weeks from PET. In no case did PET change the staging. In 13 patients, PET agreed with morphological diagnosis in the number of metastatically invaded organs. This included 3 patients without metastases. The estimated number of organs invaded by metastases was higher with PET in 5 patients and higher with morphological imaging techniques in 6 patients. Among the PET findings with higher or equivocal counts of organs with metastases there were 2 confirmed false-positive findings.Conclusion: In a selected patient population, FDG-PET was found to be inferior to CT for diagnosing lung and liver metastases. The supplementary use of FDG-PET is not generally of value once metastasis has been established.</description><subject>Abdomen - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Dermatology</subject><subject>Diagnostic Imaging</subject><subject>False Positive Reactions</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - secondary</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - secondary</subject><subject>Lymphatic Metastasis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Melanoma - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Melanoma - pathology</subject><subject>Melanoma - secondary</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Neoplastic Cells, Circulating - pathology</subject><subject>Radiopharmaceuticals</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Skin Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Tomography, Emission-Computed</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>Tumors of the skin and soft tissue. Premalignant lesions</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Whole-Body Irradiation</subject><issn>0284-1851</issn><issn>1600-0455</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0c2O0zAQB3ALgdhSeAEOyAeE4BDWdmInWXGJ2jQbKR9Vm0rsKZqmTptVPoqdgngM3hjvttIekICTx9Lvb2tmEHpLyWdKPHJNmOdQjxNCmWs7XAjvGZpQQYhFHM6fo8kDsIygV-iV1vePkNOX6IpSQoUrnAn6tUg2-cog67HI52H-9S5KNrN8HeJlvo6LVZ7hMI3X69gURZ7m0SpY3t7hj4t5ZC3D4hOOM5wGSRxlQVbgNEyCLE-DGzxvYN8PemwqXA3dEVSjhx7_aMaDufffZT82Qw8tbjrYN_0ed3I8DDv9Gr2oodXyzeWcos0iLGa3VpJH8SxIrMrhbLS2nHLwa0k8T-wECN_3XI8BET6A6zIzhVpy266BVsIFYbjHtvZWOIIBpy61p-jD-d2jGr6dpB7LrtGVbFvo5XDSpctsM2Tm_RNSX1DGGDGQnWGlBq2VrMujMs2pnyUl5cPGyj83ZkLvLq-ftp3cPUUuKzLg_QWArqCtFfRVo5-cI6hrGp2i6zPTsJfl_XBSZrb67z9_OSeavh5UBwcJ7XioQP1f_DcWL7aR</recordid><startdate>20000901</startdate><enddate>20000901</enddate><creator>Krug, B.</creator><creator>Dietlein, M.</creator><creator>Groth, W.</creator><creator>Stützer, H.</creator><creator>Psaras, T.</creator><creator>Gossmann, A.</creator><creator>Scheidhauer, K.</creator><creator>Schicha, H.</creator><creator>Lackner, K.</creator><general>Informa UK Ltd</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Taylor & Francis</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000901</creationdate><title>FLUOR-18-FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (FDG-PET) IN MALIGNANT MELANOMA: Diagnostic comparison with conventional imaging methods</title><author>Krug, B. ; Dietlein, M. ; Groth, W. ; Stützer, H. ; Psaras, T. ; Gossmann, A. ; Scheidhauer, K. ; Schicha, H. ; Lackner, K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-b515a9fe0886d6a6998782a069aa772600fe533fa1c67a6b5182b3b6462a51713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Abdomen - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Dermatology</topic><topic>Diagnostic Imaging</topic><topic>False Positive Reactions</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - secondary</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - secondary</topic><topic>Lymphatic Metastasis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Melanoma - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Melanoma - pathology</topic><topic>Melanoma - secondary</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Neoplastic Cells, Circulating - pathology</topic><topic>Radiopharmaceuticals</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Skin Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Tomography, Emission-Computed</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>Tumors of the skin and soft tissue. Premalignant lesions</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Whole-Body Irradiation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Krug, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dietlein, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groth, W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stützer, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Psaras, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gossmann, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scheidhauer, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schicha, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lackner, K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Krug, B.</au><au>Dietlein, M.</au><au>Groth, W.</au><au>Stützer, H.</au><au>Psaras, T.</au><au>Gossmann, A.</au><au>Scheidhauer, K.</au><au>Schicha, H.</au><au>Lackner, K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>FLUOR-18-FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (FDG-PET) IN MALIGNANT MELANOMA: Diagnostic comparison with conventional imaging methods</atitle><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><date>2000-09-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>446</spage><epage>452</epage><pages>446-452</pages><issn>0284-1851</issn><eissn>1600-0455</eissn><coden>ACRAE3</coden><abstract>AbstractPurpose: To assess the diagnostic value of fluor-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in screening for melanoma metastases.Material and Methods: The case records of 94 melanoma patients who had been examined by whole-body FDG-PET between 1995 and 1999 were evaluated retrospectively. Forty patients showed evidence of lymphogenous and 42 of hematogenous metastasis. The maximal interval between PET and the diagnostic procedure under comparison was 2 weeks. Confirmation of the findings was based on histology or the clinical or radiological course.Results: In 24 patients, all diagnostic examinations including CT had been performed within 2 weeks from PET. In no case did PET change the staging. In 13 patients, PET agreed with morphological diagnosis in the number of metastatically invaded organs. This included 3 patients without metastases. The estimated number of organs invaded by metastases was higher with PET in 5 patients and higher with morphological imaging techniques in 6 patients. Among the PET findings with higher or equivocal counts of organs with metastases there were 2 confirmed false-positive findings.Conclusion: In a selected patient population, FDG-PET was found to be inferior to CT for diagnosing lung and liver metastases. The supplementary use of FDG-PET is not generally of value once metastasis has been established.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>Informa UK Ltd</pub><pmid>11016764</pmid><doi>10.1080/028418500127345668</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0284-1851 |
| ispartof | Acta radiologica (1987), 2000-09, Vol.41 (5), p.446-452 |
| issn | 0284-1851 1600-0455 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72308028 |
| source | MEDLINE; Taylor & Francis Journals; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Abdomen - diagnostic imaging Adolescent Adult Aged Biological and medical sciences Dermatology Diagnostic Imaging False Positive Reactions Female Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 Follow-Up Studies Humans Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Liver Neoplasms - pathology Liver Neoplasms - secondary Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Lung Neoplasms - pathology Lung Neoplasms - secondary Lymphatic Metastasis - diagnostic imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging Male Mass Screening Medical sciences Melanoma - diagnostic imaging Melanoma - pathology Melanoma - secondary Middle Aged Neoplasm Staging Neoplastic Cells, Circulating - pathology Radiopharmaceuticals Retrospective Studies Skin Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Tomography, Emission-Computed Tomography, X-Ray Computed Tumors of the skin and soft tissue. Premalignant lesions Ultrasonography Whole-Body Irradiation |
| title | FLUOR-18-FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (FDG-PET) IN MALIGNANT MELANOMA: Diagnostic comparison with conventional imaging methods |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T11%3A54%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=FLUOR-18-FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE%20POSITRON%20EMISSION%20TOMOGRAPHY%20(FDG-PET)%20IN%20MALIGNANT%20MELANOMA:%20Diagnostic%20comparison%20with%20conventional%20imaging%20methods&rft.jtitle=Acta%20radiologica%20(1987)&rft.au=Krug,%20B.&rft.date=2000-09-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=446&rft.epage=452&rft.pages=446-452&rft.issn=0284-1851&rft.eissn=1600-0455&rft.coden=ACRAE3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/028418500127345668&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72308028%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=19612220&rft_id=info:pmid/11016764&rft_sage_id=10.1080_028418500127345668&rfr_iscdi=true |