Thomas A Hope1,2,3, Jeremie Calais4, Li Zhang3,5, William Dieckmann6, Corina Millo6. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California thomas.hope@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 3. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 4. Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; and. 6. Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
Eligibility for somatostatin receptor (SSTR) radionuclide therapy uses the qualitative Krenning score based on 111In-pentetreotide planar scintigraphy as was performed in the NETTER-1 trial. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of using SSTR PET-based Krenning score in comparison to 111In-pentetreotide. Methods: This was a post hoc head-to-head comparison of 68Ga-DOTATATE-based and 111In-pentetreotide-based Krenning scores in 150 patients included in a prospective phase 2 study (NCT01967537). Patients were imaged using 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT, 111In-pentetreotide planar scintigraphy, and SPECT/CT within 1 wk. SSTR ligand uptake was graded using the Krenning score independently by 3 readers. Results: The detection rate of SSTR-expressing disease (Krenning scores 2-4) was 23%, 38%, and 72% with planar imaging, SPECT, and SSTR PET, respectively. The Krenning score was higher with SSTR PET (2.71 ± 1.74) than with planar imaging (0.75 ± 1.37; P < 0.001) or SPECT (1.23 ± 1.57; P < 0.001). In patients with a Krenning score of at least 3 on SSTR PET, the detection rate of planar imaging and SPECT was lower for lesions smaller than 2 cm than lesions 2 cm or larger: 15% and 24% versus 78% and 89%, respectively (P < 0.001). For lesions larger than 5 cm, Krenning scores between SSTR PET and 111In-pentetreotide were nearly equivalent. Lesion size did not have an impact on SSTR PET Krenning scores. Interreader agreement was higher for SSTR PET than for planar imaging or SPECT (0.79 vs. 0.67 and 0.50, respectively). Conclusion: SSTR PET results in higher Krenning scores than 111In-pentetreotide, particularly when lesions measured 2 cm or less. Small lesion size resulted in low Krenning scores using 111In-pentetreotide, but lesion size did not affect SSTR PET-based Krenning scores. The results of the NETTER-1 trial cannot be directly applied to patients with small lesions. Further study of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in patients with small lesions negative on 111In-pentetreotide imaging and positive on SSTR PET is warranted.
Eligibility for somatostatin receptor (SSTR) radionuclide therapy uses the qualitative Krenning score based on 111In-pentetreotide planar scintigraphy as was performed in the NETTER-1 trial. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of using SSTR PET-based Krenning score in comparison to 111In-pentetreotide. Methods: This was a post hoc head-to-head comparison of 68Ga-DOTATATE-based and 111In-pentetreotide-based Krenning scores in 150 patients included in a prospective phase 2 study (NCT01967537). Patients were imaged using 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT, 111In-pentetreotide planar scintigraphy, and SPECT/CT within 1 wk. SSTR ligand uptake was graded using the Krenning score independently by 3 readers. Results: The detection rate of SSTR-expressing disease (Krenning scores 2-4) was 23%, 38%, and 72% with planar imaging, SPECT, and SSTR PET, respectively. The Krenning score was higher with SSTR PET (2.71 ± 1.74) than with planar imaging (0.75 ± 1.37; P < 0.001) or SPECT (1.23 ± 1.57; P < 0.001). In patients with a Krenning score of at least 3 on SSTR PET, the detection rate of planar imaging and SPECT was lower for lesions smaller than 2 cm than lesions 2 cm or larger: 15% and 24% versus 78% and 89%, respectively (P < 0.001). For lesions larger than 5 cm, Krenning scores between SSTR PET and 111In-pentetreotide were nearly equivalent. Lesion size did not have an impact on SSTR PET Krenning scores. Interreader agreement was higher for SSTR PET than for planar imaging or SPECT (0.79 vs. 0.67 and 0.50, respectively). Conclusion: SSTR PET results in higher Krenning scores than 111In-pentetreotide, particularly when lesions measured 2 cm or less. Small lesion size resulted in low Krenning scores using 111In-pentetreotide, but lesion size did not affect SSTR PET-based Krenning scores. The results of the NETTER-1 trial cannot be directly applied to patients with small lesions. Further study of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in patients with small lesions negative on 111In-pentetreotide imaging and positive on SSTR PET is warranted.
Authors: Tessa Brabander; Wouter A van der Zwan; Jaap J M Teunissen; Boen L R Kam; Richard A Feelders; Wouter W de Herder; Casper H J van Eijck; Gaston J H Franssen; Eric P Krenning; Dik J Kwekkeboom Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Tessa Brabander; Jaap J M Teunissen; Casper H J Van Eijck; Gaston J H Franssen; Richard A Feelders; Wouter W de Herder; Dik J Kwekkeboom Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 4.690
Authors: Samira M Sadowski; Vladimir Neychev; Corina Millo; Joanna Shih; Naris Nilubol; Peter Herscovitch; Karel Pacak; Stephen J Marx; Electron Kebebew Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 44.544
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: 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: E P Krenning; R Valkema; P P Kooij; W A Breeman; W H Bakker; W W deHerder; C H vanEijck; D J Kwekkeboom; M deJong; S Pauwels Journal: Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 1999-10
Authors: Stephen A Deppen; Jeffrey Blume; Adam J Bobbey; Chirayu Shah; Michael M Graham; Patricia Lee; Dominique Delbeke; Ronald C Walker Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Simon Lindner; Carmen Wängler; Björn Wängler; Ralf Schirrmacher; Justin J Bailey; Klaus Jurkschat; Peter Bartenstein Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Panagiotis J Vlachostergios; Muhammad Junaid Niaz; Myrto Skafida; Seyed Ali Mosallaie; Charlene Thomas; Paul J Christos; Joseph R Osborne; Ana M Molina; David M Nanus; Neil Harrison Bander; Scott T Tagawa Journal: Prostate Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Jorge A Carrasquillo; Clara C Chen; Abhishek Jha; Karel Pacak; Daniel A Pryma; Frank I Lin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Lisa Bodei; Jennifer A Chan; Ghassan El-Haddad; Nicholas Fidelman; Pamela L Kunz; Josh Mailman; Yusuf Menda; David C Metz; Erik S Mittra; Daniel A Pryma; Diane L Reidy-Lagunes; Simron Singh; Jonathan R Strosberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Andrew L Lin; Mark T A Donoghue; Sharon L Wardlaw; T Jonathan Yang; Lisa Bodei; Viviane Tabar; Eliza B Geer Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 5.958