Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 6/2019

01-06-2019 | Computed Tomography | Melanoma

False-Positive Results and Incidental Findings with Annual CT or PET/CT Surveillance in Asymptomatic Patients with Resected Stage III Melanoma

Authors: Amanda A. G. Nijhuis, MD, Mbathio Dieng, PhD, Nikita Khanna, MEcon, Sally J. Lord, MBBS, Jo Dalton, BN, Alexander M. Menzies, PhD, Robin M. Turner, PhD, Jay Allen, Robyn P. M. Saw, MD, Omgo E. Nieweg, PhD, John F. Thompson, MD, Rachael L. Morton, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 6/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to quantify false-positive and incidental findings from annual surveillance imaging in asymptomatic, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III melanoma patients.

Methods

This was a cohort study of patients treated at Melanoma Institute Australia (2000–2015) with baseline computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT imaging and at least two annual surveillance scans. False-positives were defined as findings suspicious for melanoma recurrence that were not melanoma, confirmed by histopathology, subsequent imaging, or clinical follow-up, while incidental findings were defined as non-melanoma-related findings requiring further action. Outcomes of incidental findings were classified as ‘benign’ if they resolved spontaneously or were not seriously harmful; ‘malignant’ if a second malignancy was identified; or ‘other’ if potentially harmful.

Results

Among 154 patients, 1022 scans were performed (154 baseline staging, 868 surveillance) during a median follow-up of 85 months (interquartile range 56–112); 57 patients (37%) developed a recurrence. For baseline and surveillance imaging, 124 false-positive results and incidental findings were identified in 81 patients (53%). The frequency of these findings was 5–14% per year, and an additional 181 tests, procedures, and referrals were initiated to investigate these findings. The diagnosis was benign in 109 findings of 124 findings (88%). Fifteen patients with a benign finding underwent an unnecessary invasive procedure. Surveillance imaging identified distant metastases in 20 patients (13%).

Conclusion

False-positive results and incidental findings occur in at least half of all patients undergoing annual surveillance imaging, and the additional healthcare use is substantial. These findings persist over time. Clinicians need to be aware of these risks and discuss them with patients, alongside the expected benefits of surveillance imaging.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, et al. Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(6):472–492CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
DeRose ER, Pleet A, Wang W, et al. Utility of 3-year torso computed tomography and head imaging in asymptomatic patients with high-risk melanoma. Melanoma Res. 2011;21:364–369CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Romano E, Scordo M, Dusza SW, et al. Site and timing of first relapse in stage III melanoma patients: Implications for follow-up guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3042–3047CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Leiter U, Buettner PG, Eigentler TK, et al. Is detection of melanoma metastasis during surveillance in an early phase of development associated with a survival benefit? Melanoma Res. 2010;20:240–6CrossRefPubMed
5.
Moschetti I, Cinquini M, Lambertini M, et al. Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(5):CD001768.
6.
Primrose JN, Perera R, Gray A, et al. Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2014;311:263–270CrossRefPubMed
7.
Long GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1813–1823CrossRefPubMed
8.
Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1824–1835CrossRefPubMed
9.
Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandala M, et al. Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1789–1801CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gold JS, Jaques DP, Busam KJ, et al. Yield and predictors of radiologic studies for identifying distant metastases in melanoma patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2133–2140CrossRefPubMed
11.
Xing Y, Cromwell KD, Cormier JN. Review of diagnostic imaging modalities for the surveillance of melanoma patients. Dermatol Res Pract. 2012;2012:941921CrossRefPubMed
12.
Podlipnik S, Carrera C, Sanchez M, et al. Performance of diagnostic tests in an intensive follow-up protocol for patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IIB, IIC, and III localized primary melanoma: a prospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:516–524CrossRefPubMed
13.
Holtkamp LHJ, Read RL, Emmett L, et al. Futility of imaging to stage melanoma patients with a positive sentinel lymph node. Melanoma Res. 2017;27(5):457–462CrossRefPubMed
14.
Garbe C, Paul A, Kohler-Spath H, et al. Prospective evaluation of a follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma patients: recommendations for an effective follow-up strategy. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:520–529CrossRefPubMed
15.
Francken AB, Bastiaannet E, Hoekstra HJ. Follow-up in patients with localised primary cutaneous melanoma. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:608–621CrossRefPubMed
16.
Francken AB, Shaw HM, Accortt NA, et al. Detection of first relapse in cutaneous melanoma patients: implications for the formulation of evidence-based follow-up guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1924–1933CrossRefPubMed
17.
Coit D, Thompson J, Albertini M, et al. Melanoma. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Philadelphia: NCCN; 2016
18.
Dummer R, Hauschild A, Lindenblatt N, et al. Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26 Suppl 5:v126–v132CrossRefPubMed
19.
Pflugfelder A, Kochs C, Blum A, et al. Malignant melanoma S3-guideline “diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma”. J Dtsch Dermatol. 2013;11 Suppl 6:1–116
20.
Australian Cancer Network Melanoma Guidelines Revision Working Party. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of melanoma in Australia and New Zealand. Wellington: Cancer Council Australia and Australian Cancer Network, Sydney and New Zealand Guidelines Group, 2008
21.
22.
23.
Hess EP, Haas LR, Shah ND, et al. Trends in computed tomography utilization rates: a longitudinal practice-based study. J Patient Saf. 2014;10:52–58CrossRefPubMed
24.
Wright CM, Bulsara MK, Norman R, et al. Increase in computed tomography in Australia driven mainly by practice change: a decomposition analysis. Health Policy. 2017;121:823–829CrossRefPubMed
25.
Rychetnik L, McCaffery K, Morton R, et al. Psychosocial aspects of post-treatment follow-up for stage I/II melanoma: a systematic review of the literature. Psychooncology. 2013;22:721–736CrossRefPubMed
26.
Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, et al. Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ. 2013;346:f2360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Morton RL, Craig JC, Thompson JF. The role of surveillance chest X-rays in the follow-up of high-risk melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:571–577CrossRefPubMed
28.
Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, et al. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess. 2013; 17:1–170CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Park TS, Phan GQ, Yang JC, et al. Routine computer tomography imaging for the detection of recurrences in high-risk melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;4:947–951CrossRef
30.
Mena E, Taghipour M, Sheikhbahaei S, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT and melanoma: value of fourth and subsequent posttherapy follow-up scans for patient management. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e403-9CrossRefPubMed
31.
Abbott RA, Acland KM, Harries M, et al. The role of positron emission tomography with computed tomography in the follow-up of asymptomatic cutaneous malignant melanoma patients with a high risk of disease recurrence. Melanoma Res. 2011;21:446–449CrossRefPubMed
32.
Lewin J, Sayers L, Kee D, et al. Surveillance imaging with FDG-PET in the post-operative follow-up of stage 3 melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1569–1574CrossRefPubMed
33.
Koskivuo I, Kemppainen J, Giordano S, et al. Whole body PET/CT in the follow-up of asymptomatic patients with stage IIB–IIIB cutaneous melanoma. Acta Oncol. 2016;55:1355–1359CrossRefPubMed
34.
Baker JJ, Meyers MO, Yeh JJ, et al. Routine restaging PET/CT and detection of initial recurrence in sentinel lymph node positive stage III melanoma. Am J Surg. 2014;207:549–554CrossRefPubMed
35.
Conrad F, Winkens T, Kaatz M, et al. Retrospective chart analysis of incidental findings detected by (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2016;14:807–816PubMed
36.
Horn J, Lock-Andersen J, Sjostrand H, et al. Routine use of FDG-PET scans in melanoma patients with positive sentinel node biopsy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:887–892CrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
Haydu LE, Scolyer RA, Lo S, et al. Conditional survival: An assessment of the prognosis of patients at time points after initial diagnosis and treatment of locoregional melanoma metastasis. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1721–1729CrossRefPubMed
39.
Turner RM, Bell KJL, Morton RL, et al. Optimizing the frequency of follow-up visits for patients treated for localized primary cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4641–4646CrossRefPubMed
40.
Rychetnik L, Morton RL, McCaffery K, et al. Shared care in the follow-up of early-stage melanoma: a qualitative study of Australian melanoma clinicians’ perspectives and models of care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:468CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Rychetnik L, McCaffery K, Morton RL, et al. Follow-up of early stage melanoma: Specialist clinician perspectives on the functions of follow-up and implications for extending follow-up intervals. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107:463–468CrossRefPubMed
42.
Read RL, Madronio CM, Cust AE, et al. Follow-Up recommendations after diagnosis of primary cutaneous melanoma: a population-based study in New South Wales, Australia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:617–625CrossRefPubMed
43.
Morton RL, Rychetnik L, McCaffery K, et al. Patients’ perspectives of long-term follow-up for localised cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:297–303CrossRefPubMed
44.
Memari N, Hayen A, Bell KJL, et al. How often do patients with localized melanoma attend follow-up at a specialist center? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1164–1171CrossRef
45.
Metadata
Title
False-Positive Results and Incidental Findings with Annual CT or PET/CT Surveillance in Asymptomatic Patients with Resected Stage III Melanoma
Authors
Amanda A. G. Nijhuis, MD
Mbathio Dieng, PhD
Nikita Khanna, MEcon
Sally J. Lord, MBBS
Jo Dalton, BN
Alexander M. Menzies, PhD
Robin M. Turner, PhD
Jay Allen
Robyn P. M. Saw, MD
Omgo E. Nieweg, PhD
John F. Thompson, MD
Rachael L. Morton, PhD
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 6/2019
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07311-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2019

Annals of Surgical Oncology 6/2019 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

Benign Papillary Breast Mass Lesions: Favorable Outcomes with Surgical Excision or Imaging Surveillance

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Survival Benefit of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with S-1 Plus Docetaxel for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Colorectal Cancer

Does Sidedness Matter in Unresectable Colorectal Cancer?

Breast Oncology

Breast-Contour-Preserving Procedure as a Multidisciplinary Parameter of Esthetic Outcome in Breast Cancer Treatment in The Netherlands

Translational Research and Biomarkers

Prognostic Impact of Programmed Death-Ligand 2 Expression in Primary Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients

Health Services Research and Global Oncology

Compliance with Cancer Quality Measures Over Time and Their Association with Survival Outcomes: The Commission on Cancer’s Experience with the Quality Measure Requiring at Least 12 Regional Lymph Nodes to be Removed and Analyzed with Colon Cancer Resections