UNLABELLED: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scanning is a widely accepted method for imaging of neuroendocrine tumors. This cross-sectional study was performed to review the first 8 y of patient data from a large (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT database in order to establish the impact of the modality on patient treatment and survival. METHODS: Demographic data, clinical outcome, survival, and change in management after (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT were evaluated. RESULTS: Between May 2005 and August 2013, 1,258 (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scans were obtained in 728 patients with confirmed or suspected neuroendocrine tumors. In most patients, the primary site was located in the midgut (26.4%). Analysis of NET grading in patients with known histopathologic data revealed that 35.7% had NET grade G1, 12.2% G2, and 8.7% G3. The most common indications for (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT were follow-up (24.4%) and initial tumor staging (23.4%). Of the 1,258 (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scans completed, 75.7% were positive and 24.3% negative; there were 14 false-positive and 29 false-negative scans. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 97%, 95.1%, 96.6%, 98.5%, and 90.4%, respectively. In 40.9% of patients, the treatment plan was changed after the scans, owing mainly to new, unexpected findings. Statistically significant differences in survival were shown between patients with G1, G2, and G3 grade tumors (P < 0.0001) and also between patients with bone metastasis versus patients with soft-tissue metastasis (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scanning is safe and influences management in a large proportion of patients. Prognosis was dependent on tumor grade, and the presence of bone metastasis was associated with worse overall survival.
UNLABELLED: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scanning is a widely accepted method for imaging of neuroendocrine tumors. This cross-sectional study was performed to review the first 8 y of patient data from a large (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT database in order to establish the impact of the modality on patient treatment and survival. METHODS: Demographic data, clinical outcome, survival, and change in management after (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT were evaluated. RESULTS: Between May 2005 and August 2013, 1,258 (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scans were obtained in 728 patients with confirmed or suspected neuroendocrine tumors. In most patients, the primary site was located in the midgut (26.4%). Analysis of NET grading in patients with known histopathologic data revealed that 35.7% had NET grade G1, 12.2% G2, and 8.7% G3. The most common indications for (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT were follow-up (24.4%) and initial tumor staging (23.4%). Of the 1,258 (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scans completed, 75.7% were positive and 24.3% negative; there were 14 false-positive and 29 false-negative scans. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 97%, 95.1%, 96.6%, 98.5%, and 90.4%, respectively. In 40.9% of patients, the treatment plan was changed after the scans, owing mainly to new, unexpected findings. Statistically significant differences in survival were shown between patients with G1, G2, and G3 grade tumors (P < 0.0001) and also between patients with bone metastasis versus patients with soft-tissue metastasis (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scanning is safe and influences management in a large proportion of patients. Prognosis was dependent on tumor grade, and the presence of bone metastasis was associated with worse overall survival.
Authors: Lino M Sawicki; Cornelius Deuschl; Karsten Beiderwellen; Verena Ruhlmann; Thorsten D Poeppel; Philipp Heusch; Harald Lahner; Dagmar Führer; Andreas Bockisch; Ken Herrmann; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Johannes Czernin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Jeannine Gartmann; Anthony P Heaney; Andrew E Hendifar; Joseph R Pisegna; J Randolph Hecht; Edward M Wolin; Roger Slavik; Pawan Gupta; Andrew Quon; Christiaan Schiepers; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Amit Tirosh; Georgios Z Papadakis; Corina Millo; 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: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 6.664