PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of (68)Ga-DOTANOC positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in patients with suspicion of pheochromocytoma. METHODS: Data of 62 patients [age 34.3 ± 16.1 years, 14 with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN2)] with clinical/biochemical suspicion of pheochromocytoma and suspicious adrenal lesion on contrast CT (n = 70), who had undergone (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT, were retrospectively analyzed. PET/CT images were analyzed visually as well as semiquantitatively, with measurement of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), SUVmean, SUVmax/SUVliver, and SUVmean/SUVliver. Results of PET/CT were compared with (131)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) imaging, which was available in 40 patients (45 lesions). Histopathology and/or imaging/clinical/biochemical follow-up (minimum 6 months) was used as reference standard. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT was 90.4, 85, and 88.7%, respectively, on patient-based analysis and 92, 85, and 90%, respectively, on lesion-based analysis. (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT showed 100% accuracy in patients with MEN2 syndrome and malignant pheochromocytoma. On direct comparison, lesion-based accuracy of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT for pheochromocytoma was significantly higher than (131)I-MIBG imaging (91.1 vs 66.6%, p = 0.035). SUVmax was higher for pheochromocytomas than other adrenal lesions (p = 0.005), MEN2-associated vs sporadic pheochromocytoma (p = 0.012), but no difference was seen between benign vs malignant pheochromocytoma (p = 0.269). CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT shows high diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspicion of pheochromocytoma and is superior to (131)I-MIBG imaging for this purpose. Best results of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT are seen in patients with MEN2-associated and malignant pheochromocytoma.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of (68)Ga-DOTANOC positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in patients with suspicion of pheochromocytoma. METHODS: Data of 62 patients [age 34.3 ± 16.1 years, 14 with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN2)] with clinical/biochemical suspicion of pheochromocytoma and suspicious adrenal lesion on contrast CT (n = 70), who had undergone (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT, were retrospectively analyzed. PET/CT images were analyzed visually as well as semiquantitatively, with measurement of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), SUVmean, SUVmax/SUVliver, and SUVmean/SUVliver. Results of PET/CT were compared with (131)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) imaging, which was available in 40 patients (45 lesions). Histopathology and/or imaging/clinical/biochemical follow-up (minimum 6 months) was used as reference standard. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT was 90.4, 85, and 88.7%, respectively, on patient-based analysis and 92, 85, and 90%, respectively, on lesion-based analysis. (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT showed 100% accuracy in patients with MEN2 syndrome and malignant pheochromocytoma. On direct comparison, lesion-based accuracy of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT for pheochromocytoma was significantly higher than (131)I-MIBG imaging (91.1 vs 66.6%, p = 0.035). SUVmax was higher for pheochromocytomas than other adrenal lesions (p = 0.005), MEN2-associated vs sporadic pheochromocytoma (p = 0.012), but no difference was seen between benign vs malignant pheochromocytoma (p = 0.269). CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT shows high diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspicion of pheochromocytoma and is superior to (131)I-MIBG imaging for this purpose. Best results of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT are seen in patients with MEN2-associated and malignant pheochromocytoma.
Authors: Henri J L M Timmers; Anna Kozupa; Graeme Eisenhofer; Margarita Raygada; Karen T Adams; Daniel Solis; Jacques W M Lenders; Karel Pacak Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2007-01-02 Impact factor: 5.958
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: H P Neumann; D P Berger; G Sigmund; U Blum; D Schmidt; R J Parmer; B Volk; G Kirste Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-11-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jose M Rodriguez; Maria Balsalobre; Jose L Ponce; Antonio Ríos; Nuria M Torregrosa; Javier Tebar; Pascual Parrilla Journal: World J Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Bas Havekes; Kathryn King; Edwin W Lai; Johannes A Romijn; Eleonora P M Corssmit; Karel Pacak Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2009-06-08 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Leo J Hofland; Steven W J Lamberts; P Martin van Hagen; Jean-Claude Reubi; James Schaeffer; Marlijn Waaijers; Peter M van Koetsveld; Ananth Srinivasan; Eric P Krenning; Wout A P Breeman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ingo Janssen; Paraskevi Xekouki; Joan Nambuba; Clara C Chen; Peter Herscovitch; Corina M Millo; David S Schrump; Karel Pacak Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: L H B Baur; W M J Schreurs; H R van Leeuwen-Wintjes; C L Berendsen; R Willems; R A G Winkens; R Vliegen; P Theunissen; E B Gomez Garcia Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Jorge A Carrasquillo; Clara C Chen; Abhishek Jha; Alexander Ling; Frank I Lin; Daniel A Pryma; Karel Pacak Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jad S Husseini; Bárbara Juarez Amorim; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Vinay Prabhu; David Groshar; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Lina García Cañamaque; José Ramón García Garzón; William E Palmer; Pedram Heidari; Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih; Jacob Sosna; Cristina Matushita; Juliano Cerci; Marcelo Queiroz; Valdair Francisco Muglia; Marcello H Nogueira-Barbosa; Ronald J H Borra; Thomas C Kwee; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Laura Evangelista; Marco Salvatore; Alberto Cuocolo; Andrea Soricelli; Christian Herold; Andrea Laghi; Marius Mayerhoefer; Umar Mahmood; Ciprian Catana; Heike E Daldrup-Link; Bruce Rosen; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236