PURPOSE: Over recent decades interest in diagnosis and treatment of neuroendocrine tumours (NET) has steadily grown. The basis for diagnosis and therapy of NET with radiolabelled somatostatin (hsst) analogues is the variable overexpression of hsst receptors (hsst1-5 receptors). We hypothesized that radiometal derivatives of DOTA-iodo-Tyr(3)-octreotide analogues might be excellent candidates for somatostatin receptor imaging. We therefore explored the diagnostic potential of (68)Ga-DOTA-iodo-Tyr(3)-octreotate [(68)Ga-DOTA,3-iodo-Tyr(3),Thr(8)]octreotide ((68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE; HA, high-affinity) compared to the established (68)Ga-DOTA-Tyr(3)-octreotate ((68)Ga-DOTATATE) in vivo. METHODS: The study included 23 patients with known somatostatin receptor-positive metastases from NETs, thyroid cancer or glomus tumours who were investigated with both (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE and (68)Ga-DOTATATE. A patient-based and a lesion-based comparative analysis was carried out of normal tissue distribution and lesion detectability in a qualitative and a semiquantitative manner. RESULTS: (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE and (68)Ga-DOTATATE showed comparable uptake in the liver (SUVmean 8.9 ± 2.2 vs. 9.3 ± 2.5, n.s.), renal cortex (SUVmean 13.3 ± 3.9 vs. 14.5 ± 3.7, n.s.) and spleen (SUVmean 24.0 ± 6.7 vs. 22.9 ± 7.3, n.s.). A somewhat higher pituitary uptake was found with (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE (SUVmean 6.3 ± 1.8 vs. 5.4 ± 2.1, p < 0.05). On a lesion-by-lesion basis a total of 344 lesions were detected. (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE demonstrated 328 lesions (95.3% of total lesions seen), and (68)Ga-DOTATATE demonstrated 332 lesions (96.4%). The mean SUVmax of all lesions was not significantly different between (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE and (68)Ga-DOTATATE (17.8 ± 11.4 vs. 16.7 ± 10.7, n.s.). CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated very good concordance between (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE and (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET data. As the availability and use of (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE is not governed by patent restrictions it may be an attractive alternative to other (68)Ga-labelled hsst analogues.
PURPOSE: Over recent decades interest in diagnosis and treatment of neuroendocrine tumours (NET) has steadily grown. The basis for diagnosis and therapy of NET with radiolabelled somatostatin (hsst) analogues is the variable overexpression of hsst receptors (hsst1-5 receptors). We hypothesized that radiometal derivatives of DOTA-iodo-Tyr(3)-octreotide analogues might be excellent candidates for somatostatin receptor imaging. We therefore explored the diagnostic potential of (68)Ga-DOTA-iodo-Tyr(3)-octreotate [(68)Ga-DOTA,3-iodo-Tyr(3),Thr(8)]octreotide ((68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE; HA, high-affinity) compared to the established (68)Ga-DOTA-Tyr(3)-octreotate ((68)Ga-DOTATATE) in vivo. METHODS: The study included 23 patients with known somatostatin receptor-positive metastases from NETs, thyroid cancer or glomus tumours who were investigated with both (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE and (68)Ga-DOTATATE. A patient-based and a lesion-based comparative analysis was carried out of normal tissue distribution and lesion detectability in a qualitative and a semiquantitative manner. RESULTS: (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE and (68)Ga-DOTATATE showed comparable uptake in the liver (SUVmean 8.9 ± 2.2 vs. 9.3 ± 2.5, n.s.), renal cortex (SUVmean 13.3 ± 3.9 vs. 14.5 ± 3.7, n.s.) and spleen (SUVmean 24.0 ± 6.7 vs. 22.9 ± 7.3, n.s.). A somewhat higher pituitary uptake was found with (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE (SUVmean 6.3 ± 1.8 vs. 5.4 ± 2.1, p < 0.05). On a lesion-by-lesion basis a total of 344 lesions were detected. (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE demonstrated 328 lesions (95.3% of total lesions seen), and (68)Ga-DOTATATE demonstrated 332 lesions (96.4%). The mean SUVmax of all lesions was not significantly different between (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE and (68)Ga-DOTATATE (17.8 ± 11.4 vs. 16.7 ± 10.7, n.s.). CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated very good concordance between (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE and (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET data. As the availability and use of (68)Ga-HA-DOTATATE is not governed by patent restrictions it may be an attractive alternative to other (68)Ga-labelled hsst analogues.
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: Damian Wild; Jamshed B Bomanji; Pascal Benkert; Helmut Maecke; Peter J Ell; Jean Claude Reubi; Martyn E Caplin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Daniel Putzer; Alexander Kroiss; Dietmar Waitz; Michael Gabriel; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger; Christian Uprimny; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Clemens Decristoforo; Boris Warwitz; Gerlig Widmann; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: P M Vanhagen; E P Krenning; J C Reubi; D J Kwekkeboom; W H Bakker; A H Mulder; I Laissue; H C Hoogstede; S W Lamberts Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1994-06
Authors: E P Krenning; W H Bakker; P P Kooij; W A Breeman; H Y Oei; M de Jong; J C Reubi; T J Visser; C Bruns; D J Kwekkeboom Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1992-05 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: Ferdinand Seith; Christina Schraml; Gerald Reischl; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Pfannenberg; Christian la Fougère; Nina Schwenzer Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: E A Aalbersberg; B J de Wit-van der Veen; M W J Versleijen; L J Saveur; G D Valk; M E T Tesselaar; M P M Stokkel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Stephen A Deppen; Jeffrey Blume; Adam J Bobbey; Chirayu Shah; Michael M Graham; Patricia Lee; Dominique Delbeke; Ronald C Walker Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 10.057