OBJECTIVES: To determine the value of intravenous contrast medium in (68)Ga-DOTA-Phe(1)-Tyr(3)-octreotide - (68)Ga-DOTATOC - PET/CT for the detection of abdominal neuroendocrine tumours (NET). METHODS: In fifty-five patients with known or suspected NETs of the abdomen PET/CT was performed on a 64-row multi-detector hybrid system. For PET, 150 MBq of (68)Ga-DOTATOC were injected intravenously. Full-dose unenhanced, and arterial- and venous-phase contrast-enhanced CT images were obtained. Unenhanced and contrast-enhanced PET/CT images were evaluated separately for the presence of NETs on a per-region basis, by two separate teams with different experience levels. RESULTS: On unenhanced PET/CT, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 89.3% (junior team) to 92% (senior team), and 99.1% (junior team) to 99.2% (senior team), respectively. On contrast-enhanced PET/CT, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 92.3% (junior team) to 98.5% (senior team), and 99.4% (junior team) to 99.5% (senior team), respectively. These increases in sensitivity and specificity, due to the use of contrast-enhanced images, were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous contrast medium only moderately, aleit significantly, improves the sensitivity of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT for the detection of abdominal NETs, and hardly affects specificity. Thus, while contrast enhancement is justified to achieve maximum sensitivity, unenhanced images may be sufficient for routine PET/CT in NET patients. KEY POINTS: Contrast media moderately improve the sensitivity of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT for neuroendocrine tumours. Contrast media hardly affect the specificity of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT for neuroendocrine tumours. Unenhanced PET/CT is sufficient for routine imaging of patients with neuroendocrine tumours.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the value of intravenous contrast medium in (68)Ga-DOTA-Phe(1)-Tyr(3)-octreotide - (68)Ga-DOTATOC - PET/CT for the detection of abdominal neuroendocrine tumours (NET). METHODS: In fifty-five patients with known or suspected NETs of the abdomen PET/CT was performed on a 64-row multi-detector hybrid system. For PET, 150 MBq of (68)Ga-DOTATOC were injected intravenously. Full-dose unenhanced, and arterial- and venous-phase contrast-enhanced CT images were obtained. Unenhanced and contrast-enhanced PET/CT images were evaluated separately for the presence of NETs on a per-region basis, by two separate teams with different experience levels. RESULTS: On unenhanced PET/CT, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 89.3% (junior team) to 92% (senior team), and 99.1% (junior team) to 99.2% (senior team), respectively. On contrast-enhanced PET/CT, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 92.3% (junior team) to 98.5% (senior team), and 99.4% (junior team) to 99.5% (senior team), respectively. These increases in sensitivity and specificity, due to the use of contrast-enhanced images, were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous contrast medium only moderately, aleit significantly, improves the sensitivity of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT for the detection of abdominal NETs, and hardly affects specificity. Thus, while contrast enhancement is justified to achieve maximum sensitivity, unenhanced images may be sufficient for routine PET/CT in NET patients. KEY POINTS: Contrast media moderately improve the sensitivity of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT for neuroendocrine tumours. Contrast media hardly affect the specificity of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT for neuroendocrine tumours. Unenhanced PET/CT is sufficient for routine imaging of patients with neuroendocrine tumours.
Authors: Patrick Veit-Haibach; Marc Schiesser; Jan Soyka; Klaus Strobel; Niklaus G Schaefer; Rolf Hesselmann; P-A Clavien; Thomas F Hany Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-08-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wouter A P Breeman; Marion de Jong; Erik de Blois; Bert F Bernard; Mark Konijnenberg; Eric P Krenning Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-01-18 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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: Lisa Bodei; Mark Kidd; Vikas Prasad; Richard P Baum; Ignat Drozdov; Irvin M Modlin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 9.236
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