PURPOSE: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) can be imaged with scintigraphy using radiolabelled somatostatin analogues. The aim of our study was to compare the value of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET and (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT (Octreoscan) in the detection of NET manifestations. METHODS: Twenty-seven NET patients were prospectively examined. (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET and (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT were performed using standard techniques. Treatment was not applied in between. Mean and maximum standardised uptake values (SUVs) were calculated for PET findings. Tumour/non-tumour ratios were calculated for SPECT findings. Findings were compared by a region-by-region analysis and verified with histopathology, CT and MRI within 21 days. RESULTS: SUVs of positive lesions on (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET ranged from 0.7 to 29.3 (mean SUV) and from 0.9 to 34.4 (maximum SUV). Tumour/non-tumour ratios on (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT ranged from 1.8 to 7.3. In imaging lung and skeletal manifestations, (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET was more efficient than (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT. All discrepant lung findings and 77.8% of discrepant osseous findings were verified as true positive PET interpretations. In regional comparison of liver and brain, (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET and (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT were identical. In lymph nodes, the pancreas and the gastro-intestinal system, different values of the two techniques were not indicated in regional analyses. In a single patient, surgical interventions were changed on the basis of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET findings. CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET is superior to (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT in the detection of NET manifestations in the lung and skeleton and similar for the detection of NET manifestations in the liver and brain. (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET is advantageous in guiding the clinical management.
PURPOSE:Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) can be imaged with scintigraphy using radiolabelled somatostatin analogues. The aim of our study was to compare the value of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET and (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT (Octreoscan) in the detection of NET manifestations. METHODS: Twenty-seven NET patients were prospectively examined. (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET and (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT were performed using standard techniques. Treatment was not applied in between. Mean and maximum standardised uptake values (SUVs) were calculated for PET findings. Tumour/non-tumour ratios were calculated for SPECT findings. Findings were compared by a region-by-region analysis and verified with histopathology, CT and MRI within 21 days. RESULTS: SUVs of positive lesions on (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET ranged from 0.7 to 29.3 (mean SUV) and from 0.9 to 34.4 (maximum SUV). Tumour/non-tumour ratios on (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT ranged from 1.8 to 7.3. In imaging lung and skeletal manifestations, (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET was more efficient than (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT. All discrepant lung findings and 77.8% of discrepant osseous findings were verified as true positive PET interpretations. In regional comparison of liver and brain, (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET and (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT were identical. In lymph nodes, the pancreas and the gastro-intestinal system, different values of the two techniques were not indicated in regional analyses. In a single patient, surgical interventions were changed on the basis of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET findings. CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET is superior to (111)In-DTPAOC SPECT in the detection of NET manifestations in the lung and skeleton and similar for the detection of NET manifestations in the liver and brain. (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET is advantageous in guiding the clinical management.
Authors: M Papotti; M Bongiovanni; M Volante; E Allìa; S Landolfi; L Helboe; M Schindler; S L Cole; G Bussolati Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2002-03-23 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: B Ueberberg; H Tourne; A Redmann; A Redman; M K Walz; K W Schmid; K Mann; S Petersenn Journal: Horm Metab Res Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.936
Authors: F Gibril; J C Reynolds; J L Doppman; C C Chen; D J Venzon; B Termanini; H C Weber; C A Stewart; R T Jensen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1996-07-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Frederik L Giesel; Heinz G Linhart; Uwe Haberkorn; Sabine Haufe; Stephanie E Combs; Dino Podlesek; Michael Eisenhut; Clemens Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Juliane Buchkremer; Hans-Jörg Epple; Hanno Tröger; Frank Heller; Bernd Frericks; Esther Herpel; Christa Flechtenmacher; Markus Wolfgang Büchler; Martin Zeitz Journal: Med Klin (Munich) Date: 2010-04
Authors: F Sanguin; N Albiger; C Betterle; C Mian; R Gatti; E Rossi; F Mantero; C Scaroni Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Irene Virgolini; Valentina Ambrosini; Jamshed B Bomanji; Richard P Baum; Stefano Fanti; Michael Gabriel; Nikolaos D Papathanasiou; Giovanna Pepe; Wim Oyen; Clemens De Cristoforo; Arturo Chiti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 9.236