Rudolf A Werner1,2, Harun Ilhan3, Sebastian Lehner3,4, László Papp5, Norbert Zsótér6, Imke Schatka7, Dirk O Muegge2, Mehrbod S Javadi1, Takahiro Higuchi2,8, Andreas K Buck2, Peter Bartenstein3, Frank Bengel9, Markus Essler10, Constantin Lapa2, Ralph A Bundschuh11. 1. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Ambulatory Healthcare Center Dr. Neumaier & Colleagues, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Therapy, Regensburg, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 6. Mediso Medical Imaging Systems Ltd., Budapest, Hungary. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 8. Department of Bio Medical Imaging, National Cardiovascular and Cerebral Research Center, Suita, Japan. 9. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 10. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. 11. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. ralph.bundschuh@ukbonn.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Early identification of aggressive disease could improve decision support in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (pNET) patients prior to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). The prognostic value of intratumoral textural features (TF) determined by baseline somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positron emission tomography (PET) before PRRT was analyzed. PROCEDURES: Thirty-one patients with G1/G2 pNET were enrolled (G2, n = 23/31). Prior to PRRT with [177Lu]DOTATATE (mean, 3.6 cycles), baseline SSTR-PET computed tomography was performed. By segmentation of 162 (median per patient, 5) metastases, intratumoral TF were computed. The impact of conventional PET parameters (SUVmean/max), imaging-based TF, and clinical parameters (Ki67, CgA) for prediction of both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after PRRT were evaluated. RESULTS: Within a median follow-up of 3.7 years, tumor progression was detected in 21 patients (median, 1.5 years) and 13/31 deceased (median, 1.9 years). In ROC analysis, the TF entropy, reflecting derangement on a voxel-by-voxel level, demonstrated predictive capability for OS (cutoff = 6.7, AUC = 0.71, p = 0.02). Of note, increasing entropy could predict a longer survival (> 6.7, OS = 2.5 years, 17/31), whereas less voxel-based derangement portended inferior outcome (< 6.7, OS = 1.9 years, 14/31). These findings were supported in a G2 subanalysis (> 6.9, OS = 2.8 years, 9/23 vs. < 6.9, OS = 1.9 years, 14/23). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant distinction between high- and low-risk groups using entropy (n = 31, p < 0.05). For those patients below the ROC-derived threshold, the relative risk of death after PRRT was 2.73 (n = 31, p = 0.04). Ki67 was negatively associated with PFS (p = 0.002); however, SUVmean/max failed in prognostication (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to conventional PET parameters, assessment of intratumoral heterogeneity demonstrated superior prognostic performance in pNET patients undergoing PRRT. This novel PET-based strategy of outcome prediction prior to PRRT might be useful for patient risk stratification.
PURPOSE: Early identification of aggressive disease could improve decision support in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (pNET) patients prior to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). The prognostic value of intratumoral textural features (TF) determined by baseline somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positron emission tomography (PET) before PRRT was analyzed. PROCEDURES: Thirty-one patients with G1/G2 pNET were enrolled (G2, n = 23/31). Prior to PRRT with [177Lu]DOTATATE (mean, 3.6 cycles), baseline SSTR-PET computed tomography was performed. By segmentation of 162 (median per patient, 5) metastases, intratumoral TF were computed. The impact of conventional PET parameters (SUVmean/max), imaging-based TF, and clinical parameters (Ki67, CgA) for prediction of both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after PRRT were evaluated. RESULTS: Within a median follow-up of 3.7 years, tumor progression was detected in 21 patients (median, 1.5 years) and 13/31 deceased (median, 1.9 years). In ROC analysis, the TF entropy, reflecting derangement on a voxel-by-voxel level, demonstrated predictive capability for OS (cutoff = 6.7, AUC = 0.71, p = 0.02). Of note, increasing entropy could predict a longer survival (> 6.7, OS = 2.5 years, 17/31), whereas less voxel-based derangement portended inferior outcome (< 6.7, OS = 1.9 years, 14/31). These findings were supported in a G2 subanalysis (> 6.9, OS = 2.8 years, 9/23 vs. < 6.9, OS = 1.9 years, 14/23). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant distinction between high- and low-risk groups using entropy (n = 31, p < 0.05). For those patients below the ROC-derived threshold, the relative risk of death after PRRT was 2.73 (n = 31, p = 0.04). Ki67 was negatively associated with PFS (p = 0.002); however, SUVmean/max failed in prognostication (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to conventional PET parameters, assessment of intratumoral heterogeneity demonstrated superior prognostic performance in pNET patients undergoing PRRT. This novel PET-based strategy of outcome prediction prior to PRRT might be useful for patient risk stratification.
Authors: F Panzuto; M Di Fonzo; E Iannicelli; R Sciuto; C L Maini; G Capurso; M Milione; M S Cattaruzza; M Falconi; V David; V Ziparo; P Pederzoli; C Bordi; G Delle Fave Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-12-19 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: E Prieto; J M Martí-Climent; J Arbizu; P Garrastachu; I Domínguez; G Quincoces; M J García-Velloso; P Lecumberri; M Gómez-Fernández; J A Richter Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Jonathan Strosberg; Ghassan El-Haddad; Edward Wolin; Andrew Hendifar; James Yao; Beth Chasen; Erik Mittra; Pamela L Kunz; Matthew H Kulke; Heather Jacene; David Bushnell; Thomas M O'Dorisio; Richard P Baum; Harshad R Kulkarni; Martyn Caplin; Rachida Lebtahi; Timothy Hobday; Ebrahim Delpassand; Eric Van Cutsem; Al Benson; Rajaventhan Srirajaskanthan; Marianne Pavel; Jaime Mora; Jordan Berlin; Enrique Grande; Nicholas Reed; Ettore Seregni; Kjell Öberg; Maribel Lopera Sierra; Paola Santoro; Thomas Thevenet; Jack L Erion; Philippe Ruszniewski; Dik Kwekkeboom; Eric Krenning Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 91.245
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; J Mueller-Brand; R P Baum; M E Pavel; D Hörsch; M S O'Dorisio; T M O'Dorisio; T M O'Dorisiol; J R Howe; M Cremonesi; D J Kwekkeboom; John J Zaknun Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thomas Pyka; Ralph A Bundschuh; Nicolaus Andratschke; Benedikt Mayer; Hanno M Specht; Laszló Papp; Norbert Zsótér; Markus Essler Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Constantin Lapa; Harun Ilhan; Takahiro Higuchi; Andreas K Buck; Sebastian Lehner; Peter Bartenstein; Frank Bengel; Imke Schatka; Dirk O Muegge; László Papp; Norbert Zsótér; Tobias Große-Ophoff; Markus Essler; Ralph A Bundschuh Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-01-24
Authors: Femke C R Staal; Else A Aalbersberg; Daphne van der Velden; Erica A Wilthagen; Margot E T Tesselaar; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Monique Maas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-07-26 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: P Mapelli; C Bezzi; D Palumbo; C Canevari; S Ghezzo; A M Samanes Gajate; B Catalfamo; A Messina; L Presotto; A Guarnaccia; V Bettinardi; F Muffatti; V Andreasi; M Schiavo Lena; L Gianolli; S Partelli; M Falconi; P Scifo; F De Cobelli; M Picchio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Manuel Weber; Lukas Kessler; Benedikt Schaarschmidt; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Harald Lahner; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Christoph Rischpler Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Julia Wanek; Martin Gaisberger; Marlena Beyreis; Christian Mayr; Katharina Helm; Florian Primavesi; Tarkan Jäger; Pietro Di Fazio; Martin Jakab; Andrej Wagner; Daniel Neureiter; Tobias Kiesslich Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Alexander Weich; Malte Kircher; Lilja B Solnes; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Steven P Rowe; Constantin Lapa Journal: Theranostics Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Ralph A Bundschuh; Lena Bundschuh; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Alexander Weich; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Kenneth J Pienta; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Constantin Lapa; Steven P Rowe Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 2.668