Ahead of print

Original article

Assessment of the Relationship between Metabolic Activity of Uveal Melanoma in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Chromosome 3 Monosomy

Full Text links

Summary

Introduction: Uveal melanoma is the most common primary malignant intraocular tumor in adults. A major prognostic factor is the cytogenetic profile of the tumor, particularly the presence of monosomy of chromosome 3, which is associated with an increased risk of developing distant metastases. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a relationship between the metabolic activity of the tumor assessed by SUVmax (maximum standardized uptake value) in PET/CT or PET/MRI and the presence of monosomy 3 in the tumor cytogenetic profile.

Material and Methods: A total of 37 patients with uveal melanoma were included in this retrospective analysis. All patients underwent staging whole-body PET/CT or PET/MRI with calculation of SUVmax, followed by enucleation of the affected eye and cytogenetic examination of the tumor. All patients were examined and subsequently treated between 2009 and 2024 at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Plzeň.

Results: Monosomy 3 was detected in 21 patients. In this group, SUVmax values ranged from 2.7 to 14.5 (mean 6.6; median 6.5). Metastatic dissemination occurred within 5 years of diagnosis in 16 patients (76.2%), and in an additional four patients after a longer interval. Disomy 3 was present in 16 patients, with SUVmax values ranging from 1.1 to 8.0 (mean 3.4; median 3.4). Metastatic spread occurred in only one patient (6.3%). The difference in SUVmax values between the groups was highly statistically significant (p = 0.00012).

Conclusion: Higher SUVmax values were associated with the presence of monosomy 3 and an increased risk of metastatic progression. PET/CT and PET/MRI imaging may be beneficial not only for diagnosis and primary staging of metastatic disease, but also for indirect estimation of the tumor’s genetic variant.

References

  1. Coupland SE, Lake SL, Zeschnigk M, Damato B. Molecular pathology of uveal melanoma. Eye (Lond). 2013;27(2):230-242. doi:10.1038/eye.2012.255
  2. Damato B, Dopierala J, Klaasen A, van Dijk M, Sibbring J, Coupland SE. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification of uveal melanoma: correlation with metastatic death. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(7):3048-3055. doi:10.1167/iovs.08-3165
  3. Klingenstein A, Haug AR, Nentwich MM, Tiling R, Schaller UC. Whole-body F-18-FDG PET/CT imaging in the follow-up of metastatic uveal melanoma. Melanoma Res. 2010;20(6):511-516. doi: 10.1097/CMR.0b013e3283403d6c
  4. Cohan VML, Pavlidou E, DaCosta J, et al. Staging uveal melanoma with whole-body positron-emission tomography/computer tomography and abdominal ultrasound: low incidence of metastatic disease, high incidence of second primary cancers. Middle East Afr J Ophtalmol. 2018;25(2):91-98. doi: 10.4103/meajo.MEAJO_96_18
  5. Calcagni ML, Mattoli MV, Blasi MA, et al. A prospective analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with uveal melanoma: comparison between matabolic rate of glucose (MRglu) and standardized uptake value (SUV) and correlations with histopathological features. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(11):1682-1691. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2488-6
  6. O’Connor C. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Nat Educ. 2008;1(1):171.
  7. Speicher MR, Carter NP. The new cytogenetics: blurring the boundaries with molecular biology. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6(10):782-792. doi:10.1038/nrg1692
  8. Papastefanou VP, Islam S, Szyszko T, Grantham M, Sagoo MS, Cohen VML. Metabolic activity of primary uveal melanoma on PET/ CT scan and its relationship with monosomy 3 and other prognostic factors. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(12):1659-1665. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305304
  9. Prescher G, Bornfeld N, Hirche H, Horsthemke B, Jöckel KH, Becher R. Prognostic implications of monosomy 3 in uveal melanoma. Lancet. 1996;347(9010):1222-1225. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90736-9
  10. Reddy S, Kurli M, Tena LB, Finger PT. PET/CT imaging: detection of choroidal melanoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(10):1265-1269. doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.066399
  11. Mirshahvalad SA, Wang D, Tehrani F, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic and prognostic values of 18F-FDG PET in uveal melanoma and hepatic metastasis. Cancers (Basel). 2024;16(9):1712. doi:10.3390/cancers16091712
  12. Solnik M, Paduszynska N, Czarnecka AM, et al. Imaging of uveal melanoma–current standard and novel trends. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(13):3147. doi:10.3390/cancers14133147
  13. Weis E, Surgeoner B, Salopek TG, et al. Management of uveal melanoma: Updated Cancer Care Alberta clinical practice guideline. Curr Oncol. 2023;31(1):24-41. doi:10.3390/curroncol31010002
  14. Kalemaki MS, Coupland SE, Moschos MM, et al. PET/CT and PET/ MRI in ophthalmic oncology (Review). Int J Oncol. 2020;56(2):317-331. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2020.4955