PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the role of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT in differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) patients with negative (131)I-whole body scan (WBS) along with serially increasing serum thyroglobulin (Tg), and compare the same with (18)F-FDG PET-CT. METHODS: Sixty two DTC patients with serially rising Tg levels and negative (131)I-WBS were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT and (18)F-FDG PET-CT within an interval of two weeks. PET-CT analysis was done on a per-patient basis, location wise and lesion wise. All PET-CT lesions were divided into four categories-local, nodal, pulmonary and skeletal. Histopathology and/or serial serum Tg level, clinical and imaging follow up (minimum-1 year) were used as a reference standard. RESULTS: Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT demonstrated disease in 40/62 (65 %) patients and (18)F-FDG PET-CT in 45/62 (72 %) patients, with no significant difference on McNemar analysis (p = 0.226). Per-patient sensitivity and specificity of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT was 78.4 %, 100 %, and for (18)F-FDG PET-CT was 86.3 %, 90.9 %, respectively. Out of 186 lesions detected by both PET-CTs, 121/186 (65 %) lesions were seen on (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT and 168/186 (90.3 %) lesions on (18)F-FDG PET-CT (p < 0.0001). There were 103/186 (55 %) lesions concordant on both. Excellent agreement was noted between (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT and (18)F-FDG PET-CT for detection of local disease (ĸ = 0.92), while moderate agreement was noted for nodal and pulmonary disease (ĸ = 0.67). (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT changed management in 21/62 (34 %) patients and (18)F-FDG PET-CT in 17/62 (27 %) patients. CONCLUSION: Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT is inferior to (18)F-FDG PET-CT on lesion based but not on patient based analysis for detection of recurrent/residual disease in DTC patients with negative WBS scan and elevated serum Tg levels. It can also help in selection of potential candidates for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the role of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT in differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) patients with negative (131)I-whole body scan (WBS) along with serially increasing serum thyroglobulin (Tg), and compare the same with (18)F-FDG PET-CT. METHODS: Sixty two DTC patients with serially rising Tg levels and negative (131)I-WBS were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT and (18)F-FDG PET-CT within an interval of two weeks. PET-CT analysis was done on a per-patient basis, location wise and lesion wise. All PET-CT lesions were divided into four categories-local, nodal, pulmonary and skeletal. Histopathology and/or serial serum Tg level, clinical and imaging follow up (minimum-1 year) were used as a reference standard. RESULTS: Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT demonstrated disease in 40/62 (65 %) patients and (18)F-FDG PET-CT in 45/62 (72 %) patients, with no significant difference on McNemar analysis (p = 0.226). Per-patient sensitivity and specificity of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT was 78.4 %, 100 %, and for (18)F-FDG PET-CT was 86.3 %, 90.9 %, respectively. Out of 186 lesions detected by both PET-CTs, 121/186 (65 %) lesions were seen on (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT and 168/186 (90.3 %) lesions on (18)F-FDG PET-CT (p < 0.0001). There were 103/186 (55 %) lesions concordant on both. Excellent agreement was noted between (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT and (18)F-FDG PET-CT for detection of local disease (ĸ = 0.92), while moderate agreement was noted for nodal and pulmonary disease (ĸ = 0.67). (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT changed management in 21/62 (34 %) patients and (18)F-FDG PET-CT in 17/62 (27 %) patients. CONCLUSION: Ga-DOTANOC PET-CT is inferior to (18)F-FDG PET-CT on lesion based but not on patient based analysis for detection of recurrent/residual disease in DTC patients with negative WBS scan and elevated serum Tg levels. It can also help in selection of potential candidates for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy.
Authors: Quang T Luong; James O'Kelly; Glenn D Braunstein; Jerome M Hershman; H Phillip Koeffler Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: L Krishna; S Dadparvar; L W Brady; B Micaily; M Meihofer; W J Slizofski; S J Brown; A Chevres; R Roman; A S Khan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1993-09 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: Michael Gabriel; Franz Froehlich; Clemens Decristoforo; Christian Ensinger; Eveline Donnemiller; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Dirk Heute; Roy Moncayo Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-11-19 Impact factor: 9.236