PURPOSE: To determine the prognostic value of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET), and to compare the prognostic value with that of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and other conventional clinicopathological prognostic factors. METHODS: Data from 37 consecutive patients (age 46.6 ± 13.5 years, 51% men) with well-differentiated NET who underwent (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT were analyzed. All patients underwent a baseline visit with laboratory and radiological examinations. Clinical and imaging follow-up was performed in all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) was measured from the date of the first PET/CT scan to the first documentation of progression of disease. RESULTS: (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT was positive in 37 of the 37 patients and (18)F-FDG PET/CT was positive in 21. During follow-up 10 patients (27%) showed progression of disease and 27 (73%) showed no progression (24 stable disease, 3 partial response). The median follow-up was 25 months (range 2 - 52 months). Among the variables evaluated none was significantly different between the progressive disease and nonprogressive disease groups, with only SUVmax on (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT being borderline significant (P = 0.073). In the univariate analysis for PFS outcome, SUVmax on (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.019 - 0.779; P = 0.026) and histopathological tumor grade (HR 4.238, 95% CI 1.058 - 16.976; P = 0.041) were found to be associated with PFS. Other factors including age, sex, primary site, Ki-67 index, TNM stage, (18)F-FDG PET/CT status (positive/negative), SUVmax on (18)F-FDG PET/CT and type of treatment were not significant. In multivariable analysis, only SUVmax on (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT was found to be an independent positive predictor of PFS (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.019 - 0.779; P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: SUVmax measured on (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT is an independent, positive prognostic factor in patients with well-differentiated NET and is superior to SUVmax on (18)F-FDG PET/CT and conventional clinicopathological factors for predicting PFS.
PURPOSE: To determine the prognostic value of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET), and to compare the prognostic value with that of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and other conventional clinicopathological prognostic factors. METHODS: Data from 37 consecutive patients (age 46.6 ± 13.5 years, 51% men) with well-differentiated NET who underwent (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT were analyzed. All patients underwent a baseline visit with laboratory and radiological examinations. Clinical and imaging follow-up was performed in all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) was measured from the date of the first PET/CT scan to the first documentation of progression of disease. RESULTS: (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT was positive in 37 of the 37 patients and (18)F-FDG PET/CT was positive in 21. During follow-up 10 patients (27%) showed progression of disease and 27 (73%) showed no progression (24 stable disease, 3 partial response). The median follow-up was 25 months (range 2 - 52 months). Among the variables evaluated none was significantly different between the progressive disease and nonprogressive disease groups, with only SUVmax on (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT being borderline significant (P = 0.073). In the univariate analysis for PFS outcome, SUVmax on (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.019 - 0.779; P = 0.026) and histopathological tumor grade (HR 4.238, 95% CI 1.058 - 16.976; P = 0.041) were found to be associated with PFS. Other factors including age, sex, primary site, Ki-67 index, TNM stage, (18)F-FDG PET/CT status (positive/negative), SUVmax on (18)F-FDG PET/CT and type of treatment were not significant. In multivariable analysis, only SUVmax on (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT was found to be an independent positive predictor of PFS (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.019 - 0.779; P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: SUVmax measured on (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT is an independent, positive prognostic factor in patients with well-differentiated NET and is superior to SUVmax on (18)F-FDG PET/CT and conventional clinicopathological factors for predicting PFS.
Authors: Wouter A P Breeman; Erik de Blois; Ho Sze Chan; Mark Konijnenberg; Dik J Kwekkeboom; Eric P Krenning Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.446
Authors: P Tomassetti; D Campana; L Piscitelli; R Casadei; D Santini; F Nori; A M Morselli-Labate; R Pezzilli; R Corinaldesi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-08-05 Impact factor: 32.976
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: L Bodei; M Kidd; I M Modlin; V Prasad; S Severi; V Ambrosini; D J Kwekkeboom; E P Krenning; R P Baum; G Paganelli; I Drozdov Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M Falconi; B Eriksson; G Kaltsas; D K Bartsch; J Capdevila; M Caplin; B Kos-Kudla; D Kwekkeboom; G Rindi; G Klöppel; N Reed; R Kianmanesh; R T Jensen Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: Amit Tirosh; Georgios Z Papadakis; Corina Millo; Dima Hammoud; Samira M Sadowski; Peter Herscovitch; Karel Pacak; Stephen J Marx; Lily Yang; Pavel Nockel; Jasmine Shell; Patience Green; Xavier M Keutgen; Dhaval Patel; Naris Nilubol; Electron Kebebew Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 22.682