Meta-analysis of the performance of (18)F-FDG PET in cutaneous melanoma.

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.

Role of (18)F-FDG PET in Patients with Infectious Endocarditis.

UNLABELLED: It was our purpose to evaluate the clinical impact of systematic PET/CT for the diagnosis of infectious embolisms in patients with infectious endocarditis (IE) in comparison with a historic cohort of IE patients managed without this technique. Detection of extracardiac lesions is an essential component of the management and outcome of IE. Studies using PET/CT for the evaluation of patients with IE are scarce, lack a control group, evaluate a small number of patients, or consist of case reports. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study (47 patients with definite IE undergoing PET/CT) with matched controls (94 patients with definite IE not undergoing PET/CT) from January 2012 to July 2013 in a tertiary hospital. The results were compared with those of conventional diagnostic techniques and clinical follow-up. RESULTS: PET/CT revealed at least 1 lesion in 35 patients (74.5%): 18 showed an embolic complication, 8 showed pathologic uptake on the valves or cardiac devices, 1 showed both, 5 had incidental noninfectious findings, and the findings for 3 were considered false-positive. The validity values for the efficacy of PET/CT in the diagnosis of septic lesions were as follows: sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 80%; positive predictive value, 90%; and negative predictive value, 100%. PET/CT was the only initially positive imaging technique in 15 true-positive cases (55.5%). The systematic use of PET/CT was associated with a 2-fold reduction in the number of relapses (9.6% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.25) and enabled significantly more infectious complications to be diagnosed (18% vs. 57.4%, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: PET/CT enables the extent of IE to be assessed using a single test. It is fast (<2 h) and comfortable for the patient, gathers whole-body data, and detects significantly more infectious complications.