Rudolf A Werner1, Frank M Bengel2, Thorsten Derlin2. 1. Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH), OE 8250, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. werner.rudolf@mh-hannover.de. 2. Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH), OE 8250, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland.
Abstract
CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: Conventional imaging tests like computed tomography (CT) cannot visualize somatostatin receptor (SSTR) expression on the tumor cell surface. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: For imaging of SSTR-expressing tumors conventional morphological imaging tests such as CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are employed. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Molecular imaging of SSTR expression on the tumor cell surface, in particular by using (whole body) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET), are considered the current standard of care. Only the use of CT enables for exact localization of putative sites of disease (hybrid imaging). PERFORMANCE: Hybrid SPECT/CT and PET/CT are of utmost importance for staging and monitoring of treatment efficacy. SSTR-PET is superior to SPECT and the PET radiotracer 68Ga-DOTATATE has been approved in multiple countries. In addition, SSTR positivity revealed by SPECT or PET pave the way for a peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). Such a theranostic approach enables for systemic or locoregional radiation with β‑emitting radionuclides, which are linked to the identical amino acid peptide used for PET or SPECT imaging. The prospective, randomized Netter‑1 trial has shown significant benefit for patients receiving PRRT. ACHIEVEMENTS: A combined use of conventional and functional imaging tests is superior to conventional imaging alone and allows for identification of suitable candidates for a theranostic approach. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: In case of clinical suspicion or after having obtained histological evidence, hybrid SSTR-SPECT/CT or -PET/CT should be performed, preferably in a dedicated molecular imaging center.
CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: Conventional imaging tests like computed tomography (CT) cannot visualize somatostatin receptor (SSTR) expression on the tumor cell surface. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: For imaging of SSTR-expressing tumors conventional morphological imaging tests such as CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are employed. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Molecular imaging of SSTR expression on the tumor cell surface, in particular by using (whole body) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET), are considered the current standard of care. Only the use of CT enables for exact localization of putative sites of disease (hybrid imaging). PERFORMANCE: Hybrid SPECT/CT and PET/CT are of utmost importance for staging and monitoring of treatment efficacy. SSTR-PET is superior to SPECT and the PET radiotracer 68Ga-DOTATATE has been approved in multiple countries. In addition, SSTR positivity revealed by SPECT or PET pave the way for a peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). Such a theranostic approach enables for systemic or locoregional radiation with β‑emitting radionuclides, which are linked to the identical amino acid peptide used for PET or SPECT imaging. The prospective, randomized Netter‑1 trial has shown significant benefit for patients receiving PRRT. ACHIEVEMENTS: A combined use of conventional and functional imaging tests is superior to conventional imaging alone and allows for identification of suitable candidates for a theranostic approach. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: In case of clinical suspicion or after having obtained histological evidence, hybrid SSTR-SPECT/CT or -PET/CT should be performed, preferably in a dedicated molecular imaging center.
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Ralph A Bundschuh; Lena Bundschuh; Stefano Fanti; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Alexander Weich; Kenneth J Pienta; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Ken Herrmann; Constantin Lapa; Steven P Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Rudolf A Werner; Lilja B Solnes; Mehrbod S Javadi; Alexander Weich; Michael A Gorin; Kenneth J Pienta; Takahiro Higuchi; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Steven P Rowe; Constantin Lapa Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 10.057
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: 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: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Irvin M Modlin; Steven F Moss; Daniel C Chung; Robert T Jensen; Elizabeth Snyderwine Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 13.506
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