PURPOSE: Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) and chromogranin A (CgA) assay have successfully been implemented in the clinical work-up and management of neuroendocrine tumour (NET) patients. However, there is still a lack of studies comparing results in these patients. Our aim was to compare directly in NET patients SRS and CgA assay results with special regard to tumour features such as grade of malignancy, primary origin, disease extent and function. METHODS: One hundred twenty consecutive patients with histological confirmed NETs were investigated with (111)In-DOTA-DPhe(1)-Tyr(3)-octreotide ((111)In-DOTA-TOC) SRS and CgA immunoradiometric assay. Tumours were classified by cell characteristics [well-differentiated NETs, well-differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (PDNECs)], primary origin (foregut, midgut, hindgut, undetermined), disease extent (limited disease, metastases, primary tumour and metastases) and functionality (secretory, nonsecretory). RESULTS: SRS was positive in 107 (89%) patients; CgA levels were increased in 95 (79%) patients. Overall, concordance between SRS and CgA results was found in 84 patients. Positive SRS but normal CgA level were found in 24 patients, with higher prevalence (p<0.05) in patients with nonsecretory tumours. Conversely, negative SRS but CgA level increased were seen in 12 patients, with higher proportion (p<0.05) in patients with PDNECs and tumours of hindgut origin. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, (111)In-DOTA-TOC SRS proved to be more sensitive than CgA in NETs patients. Tumour differentiation, disease extent and presence of liver metastases impact both SRS and CgA results, whereas nonsecretory activity is a negative predictor of only CgA increase. PDNECs and hindgut origin of tumours predispose to discrepancies with negative SRS but increased CgA levels.
PURPOSE: Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) and chromogranin A (CgA) assay have successfully been implemented in the clinical work-up and management of neuroendocrine tumour (NET) patients. However, there is still a lack of studies comparing results in these patients. Our aim was to compare directly in NET patientsSRS and CgA assay results with special regard to tumour features such as grade of malignancy, primary origin, disease extent and function. METHODS: One hundred twenty consecutive patients with histological confirmed NETs were investigated with (111)In-DOTA-DPhe(1)-Tyr(3)-octreotide ((111)In-DOTA-TOC) SRS and CgA immunoradiometric assay. Tumours were classified by cell characteristics [well-differentiated NETs, well-differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (PDNECs)], primary origin (foregut, midgut, hindgut, undetermined), disease extent (limited disease, metastases, primary tumour and metastases) and functionality (secretory, nonsecretory). RESULTS:SRS was positive in 107 (89%) patients; CgA levels were increased in 95 (79%) patients. Overall, concordance between SRS and CgA results was found in 84 patients. Positive SRS but normal CgA level were found in 24 patients, with higher prevalence (p<0.05) in patients with nonsecretory tumours. Conversely, negative SRS but CgA level increased were seen in 12 patients, with higher proportion (p<0.05) in patients with PDNECs and tumours of hindgut origin. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, (111)In-DOTA-TOC SRS proved to be more sensitive than CgA in NETs patients. Tumour differentiation, disease extent and presence of liver metastases impact both SRS and CgA results, whereas nonsecretory activity is a negative predictor of only CgA increase. PDNECs and hindgut origin of tumours predispose to discrepancies with negative SRS but increased CgA levels.
Authors: U Plöckinger; G Rindi; R Arnold; B Eriksson; E P Krenning; W W de Herder; A Goede; M Caplin; K Oberg; J C Reubi; O Nilsson; G Delle Fave; P Ruszniewski; H Ahlman; B Wiedenmann Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: J K Ramage; A H G Davies; J Ardill; N Bax; M Caplin; A Grossman; R Hawkins; A M McNicol; N Reed; R Sutton; R Thakker; S Aylwin; D Breen; K Britton; K Buchanan; P Corrie; A Gillams; V Lewington; D McCance; K Meeran; A Watkinson Journal: Gut Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Margarida Rodrigues; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger; Maria Leimer; Shuren Li; Fritz Andreae; Peter Angelberger; Robert Dudczak; Irene Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-05-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J C Reubi; L K Kvols; B Waser; D M Nagorney; P U Heitz; J W Charboneau; C C Reading; C Moertel Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1990-09-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: E P Krenning; D J Kwekkeboom; W H Bakker; W A Breeman; P P Kooij; H Y Oei; M van Hagen; P T Postema; M de Jong; J C Reubi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1993-08
Authors: M Cimitan; A Buonadonna; R Cannizzaro; V Canzonieri; E Borsatti; R Ruffo; L De Apollonia Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: C Schraml; N F Schwenzer; O Sperling; P Aschoff; M P Lichy; M Müller; C Brendle; M K Werner; C D Claussen; C Pfannenberg Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.909