OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the role of (68)Ga-DOTA(0)-Phe(1)-Tyr(3)-octreotide ((68)Ga-DOTATOC) positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET-CT) for detection and staging of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). METHODS: Twenty patients with clinically suspected and/or histopathologically proven pancreatic NET underwent (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT imaging for staging and /or localisation of primary lesion. They also underwent contrast enhanced CT (CECT) and 8 patients underwent (18)F-FDG PET-CT. SUVmax of primary and metastatic lesions were measured. Results were verified with histopathology for primary tumour and with clinical follow up/MRI and /or biopsy for metastatic disease. Results of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT were compared to CECT and (18)F-FDG PET-CT. RESULTS: (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT correctly localised primary in all 20, CECT in 15 and (18)F-FDG PET-CT in 2 patients. (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT demonstrated metastases in 13 patients, CECT in 7 and (18)F-FDG PET-CT in 2. (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT emerged as the best investigation with 100% sensitivity and PPV for detecting primary tumour and metastatic disease. The detection rate of CECT was lower than (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT, both for primary tumour (20vs.15) or metastatic disease (13vs.7). (18)F-FDG PET-CT performed poorly for primary and metastasis. CONCLUSION: Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT is a very useful imaging investigation for diagnosing and staging pancreatic NET.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the role of (68)Ga-DOTA(0)-Phe(1)-Tyr(3)-octreotide ((68)Ga-DOTATOC) positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET-CT) for detection and staging of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). METHODS: Twenty patients with clinically suspected and/or histopathologically proven pancreatic NET underwent (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT imaging for staging and /or localisation of primary lesion. They also underwent contrast enhanced CT (CECT) and 8 patients underwent (18)F-FDG PET-CT. SUVmax of primary and metastatic lesions were measured. Results were verified with histopathology for primary tumour and with clinical follow up/MRI and /or biopsy for metastatic disease. Results of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT were compared to CECT and (18)F-FDG PET-CT. RESULTS: (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT correctly localised primary in all 20, CECT in 15 and (18)F-FDG PET-CT in 2 patients. (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT demonstrated metastases in 13 patients, CECT in 7 and (18)F-FDG PET-CT in 2. (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT emerged as the best investigation with 100% sensitivity and PPV for detecting primary tumour and metastatic disease. The detection rate of CECT was lower than (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT, both for primary tumour (20vs.15) or metastatic disease (13vs.7). (18)F-FDG PET-CT performed poorly for primary and metastasis. CONCLUSION:Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT is a very useful imaging investigation for diagnosing and staging pancreatic NET.
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: 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: I Buchmann; M Henze; S Engelbrecht; M Eisenhut; A Runz; M Schäfer; T Schilling; S Haufe; T Herrmann; U Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Shadi A Esfahani; Stephanie Salcedo; Pedram Heidari; Onofrio A Catalano; Rachel Pauplis; Jacob Hesterman; James F Kronauge; Umar Mahmood Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-04-15
Authors: Manuel Weber; Lukas Kessler; Benedikt Schaarschmidt; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Harald Lahner; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Christoph Rischpler Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Michael Weber; Markus Mitterhauser; Harald Eidherr; Wolfgang Wadsak; Markus Raderer; Siegfried Trattnig; Andreas Herneth; Georgios Karanikas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 5.315