PURPOSE: Patients with somatostatin receptor subtype 2-positive metastasised neuroendocrine tumours can be treated with [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate. Some use octreotide as the peptide for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). We compared in seven patients [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotide ((177)Lu-DOTATOC) and [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate ((177)Lu-DOTATATE), to see which peptide should be preferred for PRRT with (177)Lu. METHODS: In the same patients, 3,700 MBq (177)Lu-DOTATOC and 3,700 MBq (177)Lu-DOTATATE was administered in separate therapy sessions. Amino acids were co-administered. Whole-body scanning was performed on days 1, 4 and 7 post therapy. Blood and urine samples were collected. We calculated residence times for tumours, spleen and kidneys. RESULTS: All patients had longer residence times in spleen, kidneys and tumours after use of (177)Lu-DOTATATE (p=0.016 in each case). Comparing (177)Lu-DOTATATE with (177)Lu-DOTATOC, the mean residence time ratio was 2.1 for tumour, 1.5 for spleen and 1.4 for kidneys. Dose-limiting factors for PRRT are bone marrow and/or kidney dose. Although the residence time for kidneys was longer when using (177)Lu-DOTATATE, the mean administered dose to tumours would still be advantageous by a factor of 1.5, assuming a fixed maximum kidney dose is reached. Plasma radioactivity after (177)Lu-DOTATATE was comparable to that after (177)Lu-DOTATOC. Urinary excretion of radioactivity was comparable during the first 6 h; thereafter there was a significant advantage for (177)Lu-DOTATOC. CONCLUSION: (177)Lu-DOTATATE had a longer tumour residence time than (177)Lu-DOTATOC. Despite a longer residence time in kidneys after (177)Lu-DOTATATE, tumour dose will always be higher. Therefore, we conclude that the better peptide for PRRT is octreotate.
PURPOSE:Patients with somatostatin receptor subtype 2-positive metastasised neuroendocrine tumours can be treated with [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate. Some use octreotide as the peptide for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). We compared in seven patients [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotide ((177)Lu-DOTATOC) and [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate ((177)Lu-DOTATATE), to see which peptide should be preferred for PRRT with (177)Lu. METHODS: In the same patients, 3,700 MBq (177)Lu-DOTATOC and 3,700 MBq (177)Lu-DOTATATE was administered in separate therapy sessions. Amino acids were co-administered. Whole-body scanning was performed on days 1, 4 and 7 post therapy. Blood and urine samples were collected. We calculated residence times for tumours, spleen and kidneys. RESULTS: All patients had longer residence times in spleen, kidneys and tumours after use of (177)Lu-DOTATATE (p=0.016 in each case). Comparing (177)Lu-DOTATATE with (177)Lu-DOTATOC, the mean residence time ratio was 2.1 for tumour, 1.5 for spleen and 1.4 for kidneys. Dose-limiting factors for PRRT are bone marrow and/or kidney dose. Although the residence time for kidneys was longer when using (177)Lu-DOTATATE, the mean administered dose to tumours would still be advantageous by a factor of 1.5, assuming a fixed maximum kidney dose is reached. Plasma radioactivity after (177)Lu-DOTATATE was comparable to that after (177)Lu-DOTATOC. Urinary excretion of radioactivity was comparable during the first 6 h; thereafter there was a significant advantage for (177)Lu-DOTATOC. CONCLUSION: (177)Lu-DOTATATE had a longer tumour residence time than (177)Lu-DOTATOC. Despite a longer residence time in kidneys after (177)Lu-DOTATATE, tumour dose will always be higher. Therefore, we conclude that the better peptide for PRRT is octreotate.
Authors: Dik J Kwekkeboom; Jan Mueller-Brand; Giovanni Paganelli; Lowell B Anthony; Stanislas Pauwels; Larry K Kvols; Thomas M O'dorisio; Roelf Valkema; Lisa Bodei; Marco Chinol; Helmut R Maecke; Eric P Krenning Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M de Jong; W A Breeman; W H Bakker; P P Kooij; B F Bernard; L J Hofland; T J Visser; A Srinivasan; M A Schmidt; J L Erion; J E Bugaj; H R Mäcke; E P Krenning Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1998-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: D J Kwekkeboom; W H Bakker; P P Kooij; M W Konijnenberg; A Srinivasan; J L Erion; M A Schmidt; J L Bugaj; M de Jong; E P Krenning Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 2001-09
Authors: M de Jong; W A Breeman; B F Bernard; W H Bakker; M Schaar; A van Gameren; J E Bugaj; J Erion; M Schmidt; A Srinivasan; E P Krenning Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2001-06-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Lisa Bodei; Marta Cremonesi; Stefania Zoboli; Chiara Grana; Mirco Bartolomei; Paola Rocca; Maurizio Caracciolo; Helmut R Mäcke; Marco Chinol; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-11-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ola Nilsson; Lars Kölby; Peter Bernhardt; Eva Forssell-Aronsson; Viktor Johanson; Håkan Ahlman Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Astrid Capello; Eric P Krenning; Wout A P Breeman; Bert F Bernard; Mark W Konijnenberg; Marion de Jong Journal: Cancer Biother Radiopharm Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.099
Authors: Lisa Bodei; Marta Cremonesi; Chiara M Grana; Marco Chinol; Silvia M Baio; Stefano Severi; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Madhav Danthala; K G Kallur; G R Prashant; K Rajkumar; M Raghavendra Rao Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: L Bodei; D Ferone; C M Grana; M Cremonesi; A Signore; R A Dierckx; G Paganelli Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 4.256