PURPOSE: The prognostic value of FDG PET for neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) has been reported. In this study we evaluated the role of FDG PET in predicting response and progression-free survival (PFS) after (177)Lu-DOTATATE peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (Lu-PRRT) in patients with advanced well-differentiated grade 1/2 NETs. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 52 patients with progressive advanced NETs overexpressing somatostatin receptors and treated with Lu-PRRT with a cumulative activity up to 27.7 GBq divided into five courses. According to WHO 2010/ENETS classification, patients were stratified into two groups: those with grade 1 tumour (Ki-67 index ≤2 %, 19 patients), and those with grade 2 tumour (Ki-67 index >3 % to <20 %, 33 patients). On the basis of the FDG PET scan, 33 patients were classified as PET-positive (PET+) and 19 as PET-negative (PET-). RESULTS: FDG PET was positive in 57 % of patients with grade 1 NET and in 66 % of patients with grade 2 NET, and the rates of disease control (DC, i.e. complete response + partial response + stable disease) in grade 1 and grade 2 patients were 95 % and 79 %, respectively (P = 0.232). In PET- and PET+ patients, the DC rates were 100 % and 76 % (P = 0.020) with a PFS of 32 and 20 months, respectively (P = 0.033). Of the PET+ patients with grade 1 NET, 91 % showed disease control, whereas about one in three PET+ patients with grade 2 NET (32 %) progressed after Lu-PRRT (DC rate 68 %). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that FDG PET evaluation is useful for predicting response to Lu-PRRT in patients with grade 1/2 advanced NETs. Notably, none of PET- patients had progressed at the first follow-up examination after Lu-PRRT. Grade 2 NET and PET+ (arbitrary SUV cutoff >2.5) were frequently associated with more aggressive disease. PET+ patients with grade 2 NET, 32 % of whom did not respond to Lu-PRRT monotherapy, might benefit from more intensive therapy protocols, such as the combination of chemotherapy and PRRT.
PURPOSE: The prognostic value of FDG PET for neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) has been reported. In this study we evaluated the role of FDG PET in predicting response and progression-free survival (PFS) after (177)Lu-DOTATATE peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (Lu-PRRT) in patients with advanced well-differentiated grade 1/2 NETs. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 52 patients with progressive advanced NETs overexpressing somatostatin receptors and treated with Lu-PRRT with a cumulative activity up to 27.7 GBq divided into five courses. According to WHO 2010/ENETS classification, patients were stratified into two groups: those with grade 1 tumour (Ki-67 index ≤2 %, 19 patients), and those with grade 2 tumour (Ki-67 index >3 % to <20 %, 33 patients). On the basis of the FDG PET scan, 33 patients were classified as PET-positive (PET+) and 19 as PET-negative (PET-). RESULTS: FDG PET was positive in 57 % of patients with grade 1 NET and in 66 % of patients with grade 2 NET, and the rates of disease control (DC, i.e. complete response + partial response + stable disease) in grade 1 and grade 2 patients were 95 % and 79 %, respectively (P = 0.232). In PET- and PET+ patients, the DC rates were 100 % and 76 % (P = 0.020) with a PFS of 32 and 20 months, respectively (P = 0.033). Of the PET+ patients with grade 1 NET, 91 % showed disease control, whereas about one in three PET+ patients with grade 2 NET (32 %) progressed after Lu-PRRT (DC rate 68 %). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that FDG PET evaluation is useful for predicting response to Lu-PRRT in patients with grade 1/2 advanced NETs. Notably, none of PET- patients had progressed at the first follow-up examination after Lu-PRRT. Grade 2 NET and PET+ (arbitrary SUV cutoff >2.5) were frequently associated with more aggressive disease. PET+ patients with grade 2 NET, 32 % of whom did not respond to Lu-PRRT monotherapy, might benefit from more intensive therapy protocols, such as the combination of chemotherapy and PRRT.
Authors: Irene Virgolini; Valentina Ambrosini; Jamshed B Bomanji; Richard P Baum; Stefano Fanti; Michael Gabriel; Nikolaos D Papathanasiou; Giovanna Pepe; Wim Oyen; Clemens De Cristoforo; Arturo Chiti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10 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: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E P Krenning; D J Kwekkeboom; W H Bakker; W A Breeman; P P Kooij; H Y Oei; M van Hagen; P T Postema; M de Jong; J C Reubi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1993-08
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