Josephine Graf1, Ulrich-Frank Pape2, Henning Jann2, Timm Denecke3, Ruza Arsenic4, Winfried Brenner1, Marianne Pavel2,5, Vikas Prasad6,7. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Campus Charité Mitte and Virchow Clinic, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 4. Institute of Pathology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 5. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Endocrinology, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. drvikaspd@yahoo.com. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Ulm, Germany. drvikaspd@yahoo.com.
Abstract
AIM: One of the primary prerequisites for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET) is the presence of somatostatin receptors (SSTR) on NET cells. NET are highly heterogeneous and an individual patient as well as separate metastases can harbor cells with different clones, which influence the SSTR expression on NET cells. With this background we looked into our institutional database to assess the prognostic significance of quality of SSTR expression on SSTR PET/CT imaging in patients treated with at least two cycles of Lu-177 DOTATOC or Lu-177 DOTATATE. METHOD: Clinical reports and images from 65 (25 females, 40 males; 65 ± 11 years old) patients with progressive grade 1 or grade 2 NET with 2-5 therapy cycles of PRRT with an average administered dose of 6.6 ± 0.97 GBq Lu-177 DOTATOC or Lu-177 DOTATATE were analyzed. All patients were examined with baseline Ga-68 DOTATATE or Ga-68 DOTATOC PET/CT (PET). Quality of SSTR expression as a measure of heterogeneity on indexed lesions was assessed visually. Patients were followed for a median duration of 25 months after the first PRRT (range 5-77 months). RESULTS: A total of 70% of the patients received three or more therapy cycles. Twenty-six patients (40%) were treated with PRRT as first or second line while 39 (60%) as third line or more. SSTR expression was heterogeneous in 28 (44.4%) and homogeneous in 35 (55.6%) patients. Disease stabilization could be achieved in 23 patients (35.4%), whereas 17 (26.1%) showed partial remission and 25 patients (38.5%) had disease progression. Median OS was not reached. The 24-month survival rate of the whole study cohort was 83%. In univariate analyses, factors influencing OS were carcinoid heart disease, carcinoid syndrome and quality of SSTR expression (p < 0.05). Patients with heterogeneous SSTR expression on target lesions had a significantly lower OS (p = 0.01). Median time to progression in total patient population was found to be 40 months. Patients with heterogeneous SSTR expression on target lesions had significantly lower TTP (26 months vs 54 months log Rank p = 0.013). By multivariate analyses, quality of SSTR was found to be the only prognostic factor for OS (p = 0.04; HR = 3.68) and also for TTP (p = 0.03; HR = 3.09). CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of SSTR heterogeneity has both predictive and prognostic value in progressive grade 1 or grade 2 NET patients undergoing PRRT.
AIM: One of the primary prerequisites for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET) is the presence of somatostatin receptors (SSTR) on NET cells. NET are highly heterogeneous and an individual patient as well as separate metastases can harbor cells with different clones, which influence the SSTR expression on NET cells. With this background we looked into our institutional database to assess the prognostic significance of quality of SSTR expression on SSTR PET/CT imaging in patients treated with at least two cycles of Lu-177 DOTATOC or Lu-177 DOTATATE. METHOD: Clinical reports and images from 65 (25 females, 40 males; 65 ± 11 years old) patients with progressive grade 1 or grade 2 NET with 2-5 therapy cycles of PRRT with an average administered dose of 6.6 ± 0.97 GBq Lu-177 DOTATOC or Lu-177 DOTATATE were analyzed. All patients were examined with baseline Ga-68 DOTATATE or Ga-68 DOTATOC PET/CT (PET). Quality of SSTR expression as a measure of heterogeneity on indexed lesions was assessed visually. Patients were followed for a median duration of 25 months after the first PRRT (range 5-77 months). RESULTS: A total of 70% of the patients received three or more therapy cycles. Twenty-six patients (40%) were treated with PRRT as first or second line while 39 (60%) as third line or more. SSTR expression was heterogeneous in 28 (44.4%) and homogeneous in 35 (55.6%) patients. Disease stabilization could be achieved in 23 patients (35.4%), whereas 17 (26.1%) showed partial remission and 25 patients (38.5%) had disease progression. Median OS was not reached. The 24-month survival rate of the whole study cohort was 83%. In univariate analyses, factors influencing OS were carcinoid heart disease, carcinoid syndrome and quality of SSTR expression (p < 0.05). Patients with heterogeneous SSTR expression on target lesions had a significantly lower OS (p = 0.01). Median time to progression in total patient population was found to be 40 months. Patients with heterogeneous SSTR expression on target lesions had significantly lower TTP (26 months vs 54 months log Rank p = 0.013). By multivariate analyses, quality of SSTR was found to be the only prognostic factor for OS (p = 0.04; HR = 3.68) and also for TTP (p = 0.03; HR = 3.09). CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of SSTR heterogeneity has both predictive and prognostic value in progressive grade 1 or grade 2 NET patients undergoing PRRT.
Authors: Ebrahim S Delpassand; Amin Samarghandi; Sara Zamanian; Edward M Wolin; Mohammadali Hamiditabar; Gregory D Espenan; Jack L Erion; Thomas M O'Dorisio; Larry K Kvols; Jaime Simon; Robert Wolfangel; Arthur Camp; Eric P Krenning; Alireza Mojtahedi Journal: Pancreas Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.327
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: Mariano J Alvarez; Prem S Subramaniam; Laura H Tang; Adina Grunn; Mahalaxmi Aburi; Gabrielle Rieckhof; Elena V Komissarova; Elizabeth A Hagan; Lisa Bodei; Paul A Clemons; Filemon S Dela Cruz; Deepti Dhall; Daniel Diolaiti; Douglas A Fraker; Afshin Ghavami; Daniel Kaemmerer; Charles Karan; Mark Kidd; Kyoung M Kim; Hee C Kim; Lakshmi P Kunju; Ülo Langel; Zhong Li; Jeeyun Lee; Hai Li; Virginia LiVolsi; Roswitha Pfragner; Allison R Rainey; Ronald B Realubit; Helen Remotti; Jakob Regberg; Robert Roses; Anil Rustgi; Antonia R Sepulveda; Stefano Serra; Chanjuan Shi; Xiaopu Yuan; Massimo Barberis; Roberto Bergamaschi; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Tony Detre; Shereen Ezzat; Andrea Frilling; Merten Hommann; Dirk Jaeger; Michelle K Kim; Beatrice S Knudsen; Andrew L Kung; Emer Leahy; David C Metz; Jeffrey W Milsom; Young S Park; Diane Reidy-Lagunes; Stuart Schreiber; Kay Washington; Bertram Wiedenmann; Irvin Modlin; Andrea Califano Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 38.330
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: Rachel E Ellsworth; Heather L Blackburn; Craig D Shriver; Patrick Soon-Shiong; Darrell L Ellsworth Journal: Semin Cell Dev Biol Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 7.727
Authors: Barbara Nuñez-Valdovinos; Alberto Carmona-Bayonas; Paula Jimenez-Fonseca; Jaume Capdevila; Ángel Castaño-Pascual; Marta Benavent; Jose Javier Pi Barrio; Alex Teule; Vicente Alonso; Ana Custodio; Monica Marazuela; Ángel Segura; Adolfo Beguiristain; Marta Llanos; Maria Purificacion Martinez Del Prado; Jose Angel Diaz-Perez; Daniel Castellano; Isabel Sevilla; Carlos Lopez; Teresa Alonso; Rocio Garcia-Carbonero Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-01-12
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Thorsten Derlin; Steven P Rowe; Lena Bundschuh; Gabriel T Sheikh; Martin G Pomper; Sebastian Schulz; Takahiro Higuchi; Andreas K Buck; Frank M Bengel; Ralph A Bundschuh; Constantin Lapa Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kyle Current; Catherine Meyer; Clara E Magyar; Christine E Mona; Joel Almajano; Roger Slavik; Andreea D Stuparu; Chloe Cheng; David W Dawson; Caius G Radu; Johannes Czernin; Katharina Lueckerath Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Stephen Ahenkorah; Irwin Cassells; Christophe M Deroose; Thomas Cardinaels; Andrew R Burgoyne; Guy Bormans; Maarten Ooms; Frederik Cleeren Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 6.321
Authors: Danny Feijtel; Gabriela N Doeswijk; Nicole S Verkaik; Joost C Haeck; Daniela Chicco; Carmelina Angotti; Mark W Konijnenberg; Marion de Jong; Julie Nonnekens Journal: Theranostics Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 11.556