Whole-Body versus Routine Skull Base to Mid-thigh (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/ Computed Tomography in Patients with Malignant Melanoma

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to assess the utility of whole-body (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18)F-FDG PET/CT) (skull vertex to toes) imaging relative to the standard field of view (skull base to mid-thigh) in patients with primary melanoma site that is not located in the lower extremities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The primary site of the melanoma and metastatic disease was determined based on (18)F-FDG PET/CT findings in 26 patients. The FDG avid sites were tabulated as the primary site, lower extremity, brain, and other sites. The hypothesis is that routine skull base to mid-thigh versus whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with malignant melanoma will not change management. RESULTS: Patients (26) were divided into those with primary melanoma site in either the lower extremities (six patients) or other site (20 patients). Four of the six patients with the primary site in the lower extremities also had positive findings in the ipsilateral inguinal lymph nodes. One of the patients with a positive inguinal lymph node had metastatic sites in the external iliac region and lungs on the initial study. On follow-up imaging, this patient also exhibited diffuse metastatic disease, including a lower extremity. None of the remaining patients in this group had positive findings other than the primary site in the lower extremity. Of the remaining 20 patients with the primary site not in the lower extremity, one had diffuse metastatic disease that included a lower extremity. However, lower extremity involvement would not change patient management in this case. A second patient in this group had diffuse metastatic disease that also involved the brain. However, no metastatic disease was present in the lower extremities in this patient. None of the remaining 18 patients in this group had metastatic disease in a lower extremity. Two patients in the entire study group of 26 had brain metastasis on contrast-enhanced head CT, with one having multiple brain metastasis. PET failed to demonstrate some of the brain lesions. In the other patient with solitary brain metastasis detected on contrast-enhanced head CT, PET was negative. CONCLUSION: (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging of the lower extremity may not be justified if the primary neoplasm is not located in the lower extremities. Elimination of lower extremity imaging will reduce scanning time and additional radiation exposure. Similarly, PET/CT imaging of the brain may not be justified if contrast-enhanced CT or magnetic resonance imaging of the head is already obtained since these are more sensitive.