PET Scan Misses Cutaneous Melanoma Metastasis with Significant Tumour Size and Tumour Thickness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2017.221Keywords:
melanoma, metastases, pet scan, wrong interpretation, surgeryAbstract
BACKGROUND: Although PET-scan is an advanced, innovative and widely used method for monitoring patients with different types of cancer diseases, it is important to note that its application in patients with cutaneous melanoma is limited and should be reconsidered.
CASE REPORT: To affirm this new statement, we are presenting a case from our clinical practice of a patient with melanoma of the interdigital space (with resected in sano primary melanoma and performed complete lymphadenectomy) that showed locoregional and systemic progression in two months post operation. The PET scan performed within the second hоspitalization (and before the second operation) did not detect the presence of any cutaneous metastases, which were clinically and histologically verified after the second operative procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: This data suggests that shortly more reliable and sensitive imaging methods for monitoring patients with cutaneous melanoma should be found. Having in mind that our patient has been operated twice in the area of the primary lesion (as the surgical wound underwent secondary healing), theoretically, the abundant cicatrization could have led to reduced glucose uptake in the surrounded cancerous tissue. Monitoring of a larger number of patients with locoregional metastases and surgical interventions in different locations would shed light on the observations shared by us.Downloads
Metrics
Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block
References
Verboom P, van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in staging non-small cell lung cancer: the PLUS study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(11):1444–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1199-9 PMid:14579081
Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology. 2004;231(2):305–32. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312021185 PMid:15044750
Peter Oehr,Hans-Jürgen Biersack, R. Edward Coleman. PET and PET-CT in Oncology. Springer Science & Business Media, 6.12.2012
McGeer PL, Kamo H, Harrop R, McGeer EG, Martin WR, Pate BD, Li DK. Comparison of PET, MRI, and CT with pathology in a proven case of Alzheimer's disease. Neurology. 1986;36(12):1569-74. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.36.12.1569 PMid:3491344
Gellén E, Sántha O, Janka E, Juhász I, Péter Z, Erdei I, Lukács R, Fedinecz N, Galuska, L, Remenyik É, Emri G. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in early and late stages of high-risk cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2015; 29: 1938–1944. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.13084 PMid:25753249
Mun G-H. Management of Malignant Melanoma. Archives of Plastic Surgery. 2012;39(5):565-574. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2012.39.5.565 PMid:23094257 PMCid:PMC3474418
Kimbrough CW, McMasters KM, Davis EG. Principles of Surgical Treatment of Malignant Melanoma. 2014; 94(5):973-88.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):225–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20006 PMid:19474385
Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, Coleman RE, Wahl R, Paschold JC, Avril N, Einhorn LH, Suh WW, Samson D, Delbeke D, Gorman M, Shields AF. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):480-508. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.047787 PMid:18287273
Khan N, Islam MM, Mahmood S, Hossain GA, Chakraborty RK. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the tumor. Mymensingh Med J. 2011;20(2):332-42. PMid:21522112
Zhu A, Lee D, Shim H. Metabolic PET Imaging in Cancer Detection and Therapy Response. Seminars in oncology. 2011;38(1):55-69. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.11.012 PMid:21362516 PMCid:PMC3075495
Casciari JJ, Sotirchos SV, Sutherland RM. Variations in tumor cell growth rates and metabolism with oxygen concentration, glucoseconcentration, and extracellular pH. J Cell Physiol. 1992;151(2):386-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.1041510220 PMid:1572910
Xiao-Feng Li,Yang Du,Yuanyuan Ma, Gregory C, Postel A, Civelek C. 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Uptake and Tumor Hypoxia: Revisit 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose in Oncology Application. Transl Oncol. 2014; 7(2): 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2014.02.010 PMid:24699008 PMCid:PMC4101348
Fenton BM, Paoni SF, Beauchamp BK, Ding I. Zonal image analysis of tumour vascular perfusion, hypoxia, and necrosis. British Journal of Cancer. 2002;86(11):1831-1836. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600343 PMid:12087474 PMCid:PMC2375413
Kim Y, Lin Q, Glazer PM, Yun Z. Hypoxic Tumor Microenvironment and Cancer Cell Differentiation. Current molecular medicine. 2009;9(4):425-434. https://doi.org/10.2174/156652409788167113 PMid:19519400 PMCid:PMC2824923
Sai KK, Zachar Z, Bingham PM, Mintz A. Metabolic PET Imaging in Oncology. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017:1-7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18112
Townsend DW, Beyer T. A combined PET/CT scanner: the path to true image fusion. Br J Radiol. 2002;75 (Spec No):S24-30. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.75.suppl_9.750024 PMid:12519732
Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW. PET/CT: form and function. Radiology. 2007;242(2):360–85. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2422051113 PMid:17255408
Mansour AA, Kelley MC, Hatmaker AR, Holt GE, Schwartz HS. Verification of musculoskeletal FDG-PET-CT findings performed for melanoma staging. Annals of surgical oncology. 2010;17(4):1144-51. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0843-4 PMid:19967460
Strobel K, Dummer R, Husarik DB, Perez Lago M, Hany TF, Steinert HC. High-risk melanoma: accuracy of FDG PET/CT with added CT morphologic information for detection of metastases. Radiology. 2007;244(2):566–74. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2442061099 PMid:17641374
Jimenez-Requena F, Delgado-Bolton RC, Fernandez-Perez C, et al. Meta-analysis of the performance of 18F-FDG PET in cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(2):284–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1224-8 PMid:19727717
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(9):1491–4. PMid:10994727
Wagner JD, Schauwecker DS, Davidson D, Wenck S, Jung SH, Hutchins G. FDG-PET sensitivity for melanoma lymph node metastases is dependent on tumor volume. J Surg Oncol. 2001;77(4):237–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.1102 PMid:11473371
Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(5):496–507. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra050276 PMid:16452561
Chang JM, Lee HJ, Goo JM, et al. False Positive and False Negative FDG-PET Scans in Various Thoracic Diseases. Korean Journal of Radiology. 2006;7(1):57-69. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2006.7.1.57 PMid:16549957 PMCid:PMC2667579
Long NM, Smith CS. Causes and imaging features of false positives and false negatives on 18F-PET/CT in oncologic imaging. Insights into Imaging. 2011;2(6):679-698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-010-0062-3 PMid:22347986 PMCid:PMC3259390
Challapalli A, Aboagye EO. Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Tumor Cell Metabolism and Application to Therapy Response Monitoring. Frontiers in Oncology. 2016;6:44. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2016.00044 PMid:26973812 PMCid:PMC4770188
Tatci E, Ozmen O, Gokcek A, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT rarely provides additional information other than primary tumor detection in patients with pulmonary carcinoid tumors. Annals of Thoracic Medicine. 2014;9(4):227-231. https://doi.org/10.4103/1817-1737.140134 PMid:25276242 PMCid:PMC4166070
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
