PURPOSE: (68)Ga-DOTA-Tyr(3)-octreotide positron emission tomography ((68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET) has proven to be superior to (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-octreotide ((111)In-octreotide) planar scintigraphy and SPECT imaging in neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). Because of these promising results, we compared the accuracy of (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) imaging with PET in the diagnosis and staging of metastatic phaeochromocytoma and neuroblastoma, referring to radiological imaging as reference standard. METHODS: Three male and eight female patients (age range 3 to 68 years) with biochemically and histologically proven disease were included in this study. Three male and three female patients were suffering from phaeochromocytoma, and five female patients from neuroblastoma. Comparative evaluation included morphological imaging with CT or MRI, functional imaging with (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET and (123)I-MIBG imaging. Imaging results were analysed on a per-patient and on a per-lesion basis. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, both (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC and (123)I-MIBG showed a sensitivity of 100%, when compared with anatomical imaging. In phaeochromocytoma patients, on a per-lesion basis, the sensitivity of (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC was 91.7% and that of (123)I-MIBG was 63.3%. In neuroblastoma patients, on a per-lesion basis, the sensitivity of (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC was 97.2% and that of (123)I-MIBG was 90.7%. Overall, in this patient cohort, (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET identified 257 lesions, anatomical imaging identified 216 lesions, and (123)I-MIBG identified only 184 lesions. In this patient group, the overall sensitivity of (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET on a lesion basis was 94.4% (McNemar p<0.0001) and that of (123)I-MIBG was 76.9% (McNemar p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis in this relatively small patient cohort indicates that (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET may be superior to (123)I-MIBG gamma-scintigraphy and even to the reference CT/MRI technique in providing particularly valuable information for pretherapeutic staging of phaeochromocytoma and neuroblastoma.
PURPOSE: (68)Ga-DOTA-Tyr(3)-octreotide positron emission tomography ((68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET) has proven to be superior to (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-octreotide ((111)In-octreotide) planar scintigraphy and SPECT imaging in neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). Because of these promising results, we compared the accuracy of (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) imaging with PET in the diagnosis and staging of metastatic phaeochromocytoma and neuroblastoma, referring to radiological imaging as reference standard. METHODS: Three male and eight female patients (age range 3 to 68 years) with biochemically and histologically proven disease were included in this study. Three male and three female patients were suffering from phaeochromocytoma, and five female patients from neuroblastoma. Comparative evaluation included morphological imaging with CT or MRI, functional imaging with (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET and (123)I-MIBG imaging. Imaging results were analysed on a per-patient and on a per-lesion basis. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, both (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC and (123)I-MIBG showed a sensitivity of 100%, when compared with anatomical imaging. In phaeochromocytomapatients, on a per-lesion basis, the sensitivity of (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC was 91.7% and that of (123)I-MIBG was 63.3%. In neuroblastomapatients, on a per-lesion basis, the sensitivity of (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC was 97.2% and that of (123)I-MIBG was 90.7%. Overall, in this patient cohort, (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET identified 257 lesions, anatomical imaging identified 216 lesions, and (123)I-MIBG identified only 184 lesions. In this patient group, the overall sensitivity of (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET on a lesion basis was 94.4% (McNemar p<0.0001) and that of (123)I-MIBG was 76.9% (McNemar p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis in this relatively small patient cohort indicates that (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET may be superior to (123)I-MIBG gamma-scintigraphy and even to the reference CT/MRI technique in providing particularly valuable information for pretherapeutic staging of phaeochromocytoma and neuroblastoma.
Authors: E van der Harst; W W de Herder ; H A Bruining; H J Bonjer; R R de Krijger ; S W Lamberts; A H van de Meiracker ; F Boomsma; T Stijnen; E P Krenning; F T Bosman; D J Kwekkeboom Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Michael Gabriel; Clemens Decristoforo; Dorota Kendler; Georg Dobrozemsky; Dirk Heute; Christian Uprimny; Peter Kovacs; Elisabeth Von Guggenberg; Reto Bale; Irene J Virgolini Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gregory A Wiseman; Karel Pacak; Mary S O'Dorisio; Donald R Neumann; Alan D Waxman; David A Mankoff; Sherif I Heiba; Aldo N Serafini; Sabah S Tumeh; Natalie Khutoryansky; Arnold F Jacobson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Daniel Putzer; Michael Gabriel; Benjamin Henninger; Dorota Kendler; Christian Uprimny; Georg Dobrozemsky; Clemens Decristoforo; Reto Josef Bale; Werner Jaschke; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas Pfluger; Christoph Schmied; Ute Porn; Gerda Leinsinger; Christian Vollmar; Stefan Dresel; Irene Schmid; Klaus Hahn Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Clemens Decristoforo; Roger Knopp; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Marco Rupprich; Thorsten Dreger; Andre Hess; Irene Virgolini; Roland Haubner Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 1.690
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: 2012-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bettina Beuthien-Baumann; Ivan Platzek; Ingrid Lauterbach; Jörg van den Hoff; Georg Schramm; Klaus Zöphel; Michael Laniado; Jörg Kotzerke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-16 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: Stephanie N Histed; Maria L Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Chenue Abongwa; Sarah Mott; Blanca Schafer; Parren McNeely; Ghada Abusin; Thomas O'Dorisio; Gideon Zamba; M Sue O'Dorisio; Yusuf Menda Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-01
Authors: Zvi Bar-Sever; Lorenzo Biassoni; Barry Shulkin; Grace Kong; Michael S Hofman; Egesta Lopci; Irina Manea; Jacek Koziorowski; Rita Castellani; Ariane Boubaker; Bieke Lambert; Thomas Pfluger; Helen Nadel; Susan Sharp; Francesco Giammarile Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 9.236