UNLABELLED: We compared functional imaging modalities including PET with 6-(18)F-fluorodopamine ((18)F-DA) with (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) with (111)In-pentetreotide in nonmetastatic and metastatic pheochromocytoma (PHEO). METHODS: We studied 25 men and 28 women (mean age +/- SD, 44.2 +/- 14.2 y) with biochemically proven nonmetastatic (n = 17) or metastatic (n = 36) PHEO. Evaluation included anatomic imaging with CT or MRI and functional imaging that included at least 2 nuclear medicine modalities: (18)F-DA PET, (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, or SRS. Sensitivity of functional imaging versus anatomic imaging was assessed on a per-patient and a per-region basis. RESULTS: For this available cohort, on a per-patient basis overall sensitivity (combined for nonmetastatic and metastatic PHEO) was 90.2% for (18)F-DA PET, 76.0% for (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, and 22.0% for SRS. On a per-region basis, overall sensitivity was 75.4% for (18)F-DA PET, 63.4% for (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, and 64.0% for SRS. CONCLUSION: If available, (18)F-DA PET should be used in the evaluation of PHEO, because it is more sensitive than (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy or SRS. If (18)F-DA PET is not available, (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy (for nonmetastatic or adrenal PHEO) and SRS (for metastatic PHEO) should be the first alternative imaging methods to be used.
UNLABELLED: We compared functional imaging modalities including PET with 6-(18)F-fluorodopamine ((18)F-DA) with (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) with (111)In-pentetreotide in nonmetastatic and metastatic pheochromocytoma (PHEO). METHODS: We studied 25 men and 28 women (mean age +/- SD, 44.2 +/- 14.2 y) with biochemically proven nonmetastatic (n = 17) or metastatic (n = 36) PHEO. Evaluation included anatomic imaging with CT or MRI and functional imaging that included at least 2 nuclear medicine modalities: (18)F-DA PET, (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, or SRS. Sensitivity of functional imaging versus anatomic imaging was assessed on a per-patient and a per-region basis. RESULTS: For this available cohort, on a per-patient basis overall sensitivity (combined for nonmetastatic and metastatic PHEO) was 90.2% for (18)F-DA PET, 76.0% for (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, and 22.0% for SRS. On a per-region basis, overall sensitivity was 75.4% for (18)F-DA PET, 63.4% for (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, and 64.0% for SRS. CONCLUSION: If available, (18)F-DA PET should be used in the evaluation of PHEO, because it is more sensitive than (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy or SRS. If (18)F-DA PET is not available, (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy (for nonmetastatic or adrenal PHEO) and SRS (for metastatic PHEO) should be the first alternative imaging methods to be used.
Authors: Stefan Hoegerle; Nadir Ghanem; Carsten Altehoefer; Joerg Schipper; Ingo Brink; Ernst Moser; Hartmut P H Neumann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-03-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ioannis Ilias; Juan Yu; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Clara C Chen; Graeme Eisenhofer; Millie Whatley; Beverly McElroy; Karel Pacak Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Michèle Duet; Elisabeth Sauvaget; Boris Pételle; Nathalie Rizzo; Jean-Pierre Guichard; Michel Wassef; Joseph Le Cloirec; Philippe Herman; Patrice Tran Ba Huy Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J W Lenders; H R Keiser; D S Goldstein; J J Willemsen; P Friberg; M C Jacobs; P W Kloppenborg; T Thien; G Eisenhofer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1995-07-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Alexander Kroiss; Daniel Putzer; Christian Uprimny; Clemens Decristoforo; Michael Gabriel; Wolfram Santner; Christof Kranewitter; Boris Warwitz; Dietmar Waitz; Dorota Kendler; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-01-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Juan P Brito; Noor Asi; Michael R Gionfriddo; Catalina Norman; Aaron L Leppin; Claudia Zeballos-Palacios; Chaitanya Undavalli; Zhen Wang; Juan P Domecq; Gabriela Prustsky; Tarig A Elraiyah; Larry J Prokop; Victor M Montori; Mohammad Hassan Murad Journal: Endocrine Date: 2015-02-06 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Kathryn S King; Clara C Chen; Dimitrios K Alexopoulos; Millie A Whatley; James C Reynolds; Nicholas Patronas; Alexander Ling; Karen T Adams; Paraskevi Xekouki; Howard Lando; Constantine A Stratakis; Karel Pacak Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Janaina Petenuci; Gustavo F C Fagundes; Anna Flavia F Benedetti; Augusto G Guimaraes; Ana Caroline F Afonso; Flavia T Mota; Aurea Luiza F Magalhães; George B Coura-Filho; Maria Claudia N Zerbini; Sheila Siqueira; Fabio L M Montenegro; Victor Srougi; Fabio Y Tanno; Jose Luis Chambo; Marcela S S Ferrari; Joao Evangelista Bezerra Neto; Maria Adelaide A Pereira; Ana Claudia Latronico; Maria Candida B V Fragoso; Berenice B Mendonca; Ana O Hoff; Madson Q Almeida Journal: Endocrine Date: 2021-01-09 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Hiren V Patel; Arnav Srivastava; Murray D Becker; Toni Beninato; Amanda M Laird; Eric A Singer Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Hanwen Zhang; Ruimin Huang; Nai-Kong V Cheung; Hongfen Guo; Pat B Zanzonico; Howard T Thaler; Jason S Lewis; Ronald G Blasberg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 12.531