PURPOSE: We aimed to compare imaging with (123)I-MIBG and (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE in neural crest tumours (NCT) to see if the latter could offer more advantage in detecting extra lesions and have higher sensitivity for malignant lesions. PROCEDURES: We retrospectively reviewed 12 patients (M = 10, F = 2; age range 20-71 years) with NCT (phaeochromocytomas = 7, paragangliomas = 4, medullary thyroid cancer = 1) who underwent both (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (CT) and (123)I-MIBG single-photon emission computed tomography within 6 months. Visual assessment of all lesions and measurement of target/non-target (T/N) ratio in selected lesions were performed. Five patients (aged 50 or less) had SDHB screening results correlated with imaging results of both radiopharmaceuticals. All patients had contrast-enhanced CT and/or other cross-sectional imaging. RESULTS: (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE PET showed tumour lesions in ten out of 12 patients with confirmed disease, while (123)I-MIBG showed lesions in five out of 12 patients. In one patient, both (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE PET and (123)I-MIBG were negative, but CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose PET scans identified a lesion in the thorax. (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE and (123)I-MIBG detected a total of 30 lesions, of which 29/30 were positive with (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE and 7/30 with (123)I-MIBG. We also found higher incidence of SDHB positive results in patients with positive (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE. CONCLUSION: Our limited data suggest that (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE is a better imaging agent for NCT and detects significantly more lesions with higher T/N ratio compared to (123)I-MIBG. (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE was more likely to detect malignant lesions as indicated by correlating imaging results with SDHB screening.
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare imaging with (123)I-MIBG and (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE in neural crest tumours (NCT) to see if the latter could offer more advantage in detecting extra lesions and have higher sensitivity for malignant lesions. PROCEDURES: We retrospectively reviewed 12 patients (M = 10, F = 2; age range 20-71 years) with NCT (phaeochromocytomas = 7, paragangliomas = 4, medullary thyroid cancer = 1) who underwent both (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (CT) and (123)I-MIBG single-photon emission computed tomography within 6 months. Visual assessment of all lesions and measurement of target/non-target (T/N) ratio in selected lesions were performed. Five patients (aged 50 or less) had SDHB screening results correlated with imaging results of both radiopharmaceuticals. All patients had contrast-enhanced CT and/or other cross-sectional imaging. RESULTS: (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE PET showed tumour lesions in ten out of 12 patients with confirmed disease, while (123)I-MIBG showed lesions in five out of 12 patients. In one patient, both (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE PET and (123)I-MIBG were negative, but CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose PET scans identified a lesion in the thorax. (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE and (123)I-MIBG detected a total of 30 lesions, of which 29/30 were positive with (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE and 7/30 with (123)I-MIBG. We also found higher incidence of SDHB positive results in patients with positive (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE. CONCLUSION: Our limited data suggest that (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE is a better imaging agent for NCT and detects significantly more lesions with higher T/N ratio compared to (123)I-MIBG. (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE was more likely to detect malignant lesions as indicated by correlating imaging results with SDHB screening.
Authors: Marcelo Mamede; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Clara C Chen; Pedro Del Corral; Millie Whatley; Ioannis Ilias; Alejandro Ayala; Karel Pacak Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Diana E Benn; Anne-Paule Gimenez-Roqueplo; Jennifer R Reilly; Jérôme Bertherat; John Burgess; Karen Byth; Michael Croxson; Patricia L M Dahia; Marianne Elston; Oliver Gimm; David Henley; Philippe Herman; Victoria Murday; Patricia Niccoli-Sire; Janice L Pasieka; Vincent Rohmer; Kathy Tucker; Xavier Jeunemaitre; Deborah J Marsh; Pierre-François Plouin; Bruce G Robinson Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2005-11-29 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: S Maurea; C Mainolfi; H Wang; P Varrella; M R Panico; M Klain; R Rossi; F Cremona; L Bazzicalupo; M Salvatore Journal: Radiol Med Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Klaas Pieter Koopmans; Pieter L Jager; Ido P Kema; Michiel N Kerstens; Frans Albers; Robin P F Dullaart Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-07-16 Impact factor: 10.057
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: David Taïeb; Alexandre Kaliski; Carsten C Boedeker; Victoria Martucci; Tito Fojo; John R Adler; Karel Pacak Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: Jessie R Nedrow; Alexander G White; Jalpa Modi; Kim Nguyen; Albert J Chang; Carolyn J Anderson Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.488