PURPOSE: The goal of our study was to quantify the expression of the somatostatin receptors (SSTR2) using the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of [(68)Ga]DOTA(0)-Phe(1)-Tyr(3)-octreotide (DOTATOC) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) in liver metastases of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) prior to peptide receptor radiation therapy (PRRT) and compare the initial tumor uptake with the final treatment outcome. PROCEDURES: SSTR2 expression of the 60 liver metastases in 30 NET patients was assessed at baseline and after PRRT by measuring SUVmax, tumor to spleen ratio (T/S ratio), and tumor to liver ratio (T/L ratio). Based on morphological changes and tumor size measured at baseline and follow-up contrast-enhanced CT (after three cycles of PRRT), lesions were divided into two groups by the following: (i) responding (n = 40) and (ii) non-responding (n = 20). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed in the mean SUVmax for non-responding vs. responding lesions at baseline (18.00 ± 3.59 vs. 33.55 ± 4.62, p < 0.05) and for the mean T/S ratio (1.20 ± 0.37 vs. 1.90 ± 0.45, p < 0.05) and the mean T/L ratio (3.15 ± 0.53 vs. 4.97 ± 0.62, p < 0.05). Using the receiver operating characteristic curves, SUVmax was found a better metric than both T/L ratio and T/S ratio (area under the curve (AUC) of SUVmax 0.87; T/L ratio 0.78; T/S ratio 0.73) as a stratification criterion. Using a threshold value of >16.4 for SUVmax, the sensitivity and specificity in predicting responding lesions were 95 and 60 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: We propose a SUVmax cutoff of >16.4 from [(68)Ga]DOTATOC-PET-CT to select patients for PRRT. A T/L ratio >2.2 might present a scanner-independent criterion that enables the translation of our results to other institutions. However, the robustness of this arbitrary unit still needs to be evaluated with different PET scanners.
PURPOSE: The goal of our study was to quantify the expression of the somatostatin receptors (SSTR2) using the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of [(68)Ga]DOTA(0)-Phe(1)-Tyr(3)-octreotide (DOTATOC) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) in liver metastases of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) prior to peptide receptor radiation therapy (PRRT) and compare the initial tumor uptake with the final treatment outcome. PROCEDURES: SSTR2 expression of the 60 liver metastases in 30 NET patients was assessed at baseline and after PRRT by measuring SUVmax, tumor to spleen ratio (T/S ratio), and tumor to liver ratio (T/L ratio). Based on morphological changes and tumor size measured at baseline and follow-up contrast-enhanced CT (after three cycles of PRRT), lesions were divided into two groups by the following: (i) responding (n = 40) and (ii) non-responding (n = 20). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed in the mean SUVmax for non-responding vs. responding lesions at baseline (18.00 ± 3.59 vs. 33.55 ± 4.62, p < 0.05) and for the mean T/S ratio (1.20 ± 0.37 vs. 1.90 ± 0.45, p < 0.05) and the mean T/L ratio (3.15 ± 0.53 vs. 4.97 ± 0.62, p < 0.05). Using the receiver operating characteristic curves, SUVmax was found a better metric than both T/L ratio and T/S ratio (area under the curve (AUC) of SUVmax 0.87; T/L ratio 0.78; T/S ratio 0.73) as a stratification criterion. Using a threshold value of >16.4 for SUVmax, the sensitivity and specificity in predicting responding lesions were 95 and 60 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: We propose a SUVmax cutoff of >16.4 from [(68)Ga]DOTATOC-PET-CT to select patients for PRRT. A T/L ratio >2.2 might present a scanner-independent criterion that enables the translation of our results to other institutions. However, the robustness of this arbitrary unit still needs to be evaluated with different PET scanners.
Authors: Andreas Klaus Pfeifer; Tine Gregersen; Henning Grønbæk; Carsten Palnæs Hansen; Jan Müller-Brand; Karin Herskind Bruun; Klaus Krogh; Andreas Kjær; Ulrich Knigge Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2011-02-19 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; A Mehndiratta; S Wulfert; J H Moltz; C M Zechmann; H U Kauczor; U Haberkorn; S Ley Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Eric Raymond; Laetitia Dahan; Jean-Luc Raoul; Yung-Jue Bang; Ivan Borbath; Catherine Lombard-Bohas; Juan Valle; Peter Metrakos; Denis Smith; Aaron Vinik; Jen-Shi Chen; Dieter Hörsch; Pascal Hammel; Bertram Wiedenmann; Eric Van Cutsem; Shem Patyna; Dongrui Ray Lu; Carolyn Blanckmeister; Richard Chao; Philippe Ruszniewski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jonathan R Strosberg; Robert L Fine; Junsung Choi; Aejaz Nasir; Domenico Coppola; Dung-Tsa Chen; James Helm; Larry Kvols Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anja Rinke; Hans-Helge Müller; Carmen Schade-Brittinger; Klaus-Jochen Klose; Peter Barth; Matthias Wied; Christina Mayer; Behnaz Aminossadati; Ulrich-Frank Pape; Michael Bläker; Jan Harder; Christian Arnold; Thomas Gress; Rudolf Arnold Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dik J Kwekkeboom; Wouter W de Herder; Boen L Kam; Casper H van Eijck; Martijn van Essen; Peter P Kooij; Richard A Feelders; Maarten O van Aken; Eric P Krenning Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Heribert Hänscheid; Jeffrey P Leal; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Martin A Lodge; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Constantin Lapa; Steven P Rowe Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Christoph Wetz; I Apostolova; I G Steffen; F Hofheinz; C Furth; D Kupitz; J Ruf; M Venerito; S Klose; Holger Amthauer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: L Bodei; M Kidd; I M Modlin; S Severi; I Drozdov; S Nicolini; D J Kwekkeboom; E P Krenning; R P Baum; G Paganelli Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 9.236