Jeremie Calais1, Johannes Czernin2, Matthias Eiber2, Wolfgang P Fendler2, Jeannine Gartmann2, Anthony P Heaney3, Andrew E Hendifar4, Joseph R Pisegna5, J Randolph Hecht6, Edward M Wolin7, Roger Slavik2, Pawan Gupta2, Andrew Quon2, Christiaan Schiepers2, Martin S Allen-Auerbach2, Ken Herrmann2,8. 1. Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California jcalais@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Endocrinology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 5. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, VAGLAHS, and Departments of Medicine and Human Genetics, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 6. Department of Oncology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Oncology, Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, New York, New York; and. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
In this prospective referring-physician-based survey, we investigated the definite clinical impact of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT on managing patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Methods: We prospectively studied 130 patients with 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT referred for initial or subsequent management decisions (NCT02174679). Referring physicians completed one questionnaire before the scan (Q1) to indicate the treatment plan without PET/CT information, one immediately after review of the imaging report to denote intended management changes (Q2), and one 6 mo later (Q3) to verify whether intended changes were in fact implemented. To further validate the Q3 responses, a systematic electronic chart review was conducted. Results: All 3 questionnaires were completed by referring physicians for 96 of 130 patients (74%). 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT resulted in intended management changes (Q2) in 48 of 96 patients (50%). These changes were finally implemented (Q3) in 36 of 48 patients (75%). Q3 responses were confirmed in all patients with an available electronic chart (36/96; 38%). Conclusion: This prospective study confirmed a significant impact of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT on the intended management of patients with NETs (50% of changes) and notably demonstrated a high implementation rate (75%) of these intended management changes.
In this prospective referring-physician-based survey, we investigated the definite clinical impact of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT on managing patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Methods: We prospectively studied 130 patients with 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT referred for initial or subsequent management decisions (NCT02174679). Referring physicians completed one questionnaire before the scan (Q1) to indicate the treatment plan without PET/CT information, one immediately after review of the imaging report to denote intended management changes (Q2), and one 6 mo later (Q3) to verify whether intended changes were in fact implemented. To further validate the Q3 responses, a systematic electronic chart review was conducted. Results:All 3 questionnaires were completed by referring physicians for 96 of 130 patients (74%). 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT resulted in intended management changes (Q2) in 48 of 96 patients (50%). These changes were finally implemented (Q3) in 36 of 48 patients (75%). Q3 responses were confirmed in all patients with an available electronic chart (36/96; 38%). Conclusion: This prospective study confirmed a significant impact of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT on the intended management of patients with NETs (50% of changes) and notably demonstrated a high implementation rate (75%) of these intended management changes.
Authors: Martin Barrio; Johannes Czernin; Stefano Fanti; Valentina Ambrosini; Ina Binse; Lin Du; Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Martin Barrio; Claudio Spick; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Valentina Ambrosini; Matthias Benz; Christina Bluemel; Ravinder Kaur Grewal; Constantin Lapa; Matthias Miederer; Guillaume Nicolas; Tibor Schuster; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Edward M Wolin; Pawan Gupta; Martin Barrio; Antonio Gutierrez; Christiaan Schiepers; Sherly Mosessian; Michael E Phelps; Martin S Allen-Auerbach Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Dawei Liu; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; R Edward Coleman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christina Pfannenberg; Brigitte Gueckel; Lisa Wang; Sergios Gatidis; Susann-Cathrin Olthof; Werner Vach; Matthias Reimold; Christian la Fougere; Konstantin Nikolaou; Peter Martus Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Jeannine Gartmann; Fang-I Chu; Nicholas G Nickols; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Leonard S Marks; Thomas E Ahlering; Linda M Huynh; Roger Slavik; Pawan Gupta; Andrew Quon; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lukas Kessler; Justin Ferdinandus; Nader Hirmas; Sebastian Bauer; Uta Dirksen; Fadi Zarrad; Michael Nader; Michal Chodyla; Aleksandar Milosevic; Lale Umutlu; Martin Schuler; Lars Erik Podleska; Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus; Wolfgang P Fendler; Rainer Hamacher Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Rudolf A Werner; Sebastian E Serfling; Yingjun Zhi; Felix Megerle; Martin Fassnacht; Andreas K Buck Journal: Endocrine Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 3.925