Oncology Medical News about 18F-FDG PET/CT

Become a Member Today!
Register

Most Viewed Abstracts

1. Report Shows Shift in Starting Salaries for Physicians

2. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology

3. Taxane-based combinations as adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

4. Gene expression signatures, clinicopathological features, and individualized therapy in breast cancer

5. Sentinel node biopsy is important in mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ

Your Article Summary

See Latest Articles

(Click the title below to leave the MDLinx Network and go to the Journal's Website)

Limited value of 18F-FDG PET/CT and S-100B tumour marker in the detection of liver metastases from uveal melanoma compared to liver metastases from cutaneous melanoma
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging, 06/11/09

Strobel K et al. - In a study to evaluate the value of 18F-FDG PET/CT and S-100B tumour marker for detection of liver metastases from uveal melanoma in comparison with liver metastases from cutaneous melanoma, it was found that FDG PET/CT and serum S-100B are not sensitive enough for detection of liver metastases from uveal melanoma (UM), whereas liver metastases from cutaneous melanoma are reliably FDG-positive and lead regularly to increased S-100B tumour markers.

Methods

A retrospective evaluation was conducted of 27 liver metastases in 13 pts with UM and 43 liver metastases in 14 pts with CM regarding size and FDG uptake by measuring the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).
S-100B serum tumour markers were available in 20 pts.
Cytology, histology, additional morphological imaging, and follow-up served as reference standard.
In 9 pts, liver metastases were further evaluated histologically regarding GLUT-1 and S-100 receptor expression and regarding epithelial or spindle cell growth pattern.

Results

Of 27 liver metastases in 6 of 13 pts (46%) with UM, 16 (59%) were FDG-negative, whereas all liver metastases from CM were positive.
Liver metastases from UM showed significantly lower SUVmax compared with liver metastases from CM.
In 4 of 6 (66.7%) pts with UM and liver metastases, S-100B was normal and in 2 (33.3%) increased.
All PET-negative liver metastases were detectable by morphological imaging (CT or MRI).
S-100B was abnormal in 13 of 14 pts with liver metastases from CM.
S-100B values were significantly higher in the CM pt group compared with UM pts.
Histological work-up of the liver metastases showed no obvious difference in GLUT-1 or S-100 expression between UM and CM liver metastases.
The minority (36%) of pts with UM had extrahepatic metastases and the majority (86%) of pts with CM had extrahepatic metastases, respectively.
There was a close to significant trend to better survival of UM pts compared with CM pts.

<< Previous
Detection of bone metastases in patients with lung cancer:...

Next >>
Successful treatment of primary AL amyloidosis by VAD therapy,...