Manuel Weber1, Lukas Kessler2, Benedikt Schaarschmidt3, Wolfgang Peter Fendler2, Harald Lahner4, Gerald Antoch5, Lale Umutlu3, Ken Herrmann2, Christoph Rischpler2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. manuel.weber@uk-essen.de. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Division of Laboratory Research, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) frequently overexpress somatostatin receptors (SSTRs), which is the molecular basis for 68Ga-DOTATOC positron-emission tomography (PET) and radiopeptide therapy (PRRT). However, SSTR expression fluctuates and can be subject to treatment-related changes. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess, which changes in PET and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) occur for different treatments and if pre-therapeutic 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI was able to predict treatment response to PRRT. METHODS: Patients with histopathologically confirmed NET, at least one liver metastasis > 1 cm and at least two 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI including ADC maps were eligible. 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI of up to 5 liver lesions per patients was subsequently analyzed. Extracted features comprise conventional PET parameters, such as maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVmean) and ADC values. Furthermore, textural features (TFs) from both modalities were extracted. In patients with multiple 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI a pair of 2 scans each was analyzed separately and the parameter changes between both scans calculated. The same image analysis was performed in patients with 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI before PRRT. Differences in PET and ADC maps parameters between PRRT-responders and non-responders were compared using Mann-Whitney test to test differences among groups for statistical significance. RESULTS: 29 pairs of 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI scans of 18 patients were eligible for the assessment of treatment-related changes. In 12 cases patients were treated with somatostatin analogues between scans, in 9 cases with PRRT and in 2 cases each patients received local treatment, chemotherapy and sunitinib. Treatment responders showed a statistically significant decrease in lesion volume and a borderline significant decrease in entropy on ADC maps when compared to non-responders. Patients treated with standalone SSA showed a borderline significant decrease in mean and maximum ADC, compared to patients treated with PRRT. No parameters were able to predict treatment response to PRRT on pre-therapeutic 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients responding to current treatment showed a statistically significant decrease in lesion volume on ADC maps and a borderline significant decrease in entropy. No statistically significant changes in PET parameters were observed. No PET or ADC maps parameters predicted treatment response to PRRT. However, the sample size of this preliminary study is small and further research needed.
BACKGROUND:Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) frequently overexpress somatostatin receptors (SSTRs), which is the molecular basis for 68Ga-DOTATOC positron-emission tomography (PET) and radiopeptide therapy (PRRT). However, SSTR expression fluctuates and can be subject to treatment-related changes. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess, which changes in PET and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) occur for different treatments and if pre-therapeutic 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI was able to predict treatment response to PRRT. METHODS:Patients with histopathologically confirmed NET, at least one liver metastasis > 1 cm and at least two 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI including ADC maps were eligible. 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI of up to 5 liver lesions per patients was subsequently analyzed. Extracted features comprise conventional PET parameters, such as maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVmean) and ADC values. Furthermore, textural features (TFs) from both modalities were extracted. In patients with multiple 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI a pair of 2 scans each was analyzed separately and the parameter changes between both scans calculated. The same image analysis was performed in patients with 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI before PRRT. Differences in PET and ADC maps parameters between PRRT-responders and non-responders were compared using Mann-Whitney test to test differences among groups for statistical significance. RESULTS: 29 pairs of 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI scans of 18 patients were eligible for the assessment of treatment-related changes. In 12 cases patients were treated with somatostatin analogues between scans, in 9 cases with PRRT and in 2 cases each patients received local treatment, chemotherapy and sunitinib. Treatment responders showed a statistically significant decrease in lesion volume and a borderline significant decrease in entropy on ADC maps when compared to non-responders. Patients treated with standalone SSA showed a borderline significant decrease in mean and maximum ADC, compared to patients treated with PRRT. No parameters were able to predict treatment response to PRRT on pre-therapeutic 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/MRI. CONCLUSIONS:Patients responding to current treatment showed a statistically significant decrease in lesion volume on ADC maps and a borderline significant decrease in entropy. No statistically significant changes in PET parameters were observed. No PET or ADC maps parameters predicted treatment response to PRRT. However, the sample size of this preliminary study is small and further research needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
DOTATOC; NET; PET/MRI; Radiomics; Radiopeptide therapy; Textural features
Authors: Gaspar Delso; Sebastian Fürst; Björn Jakoby; Ralf Ladebeck; Carl Ganter; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Cives; M Ghayouri; B Morse; M Brelsford; M Black; A Rizzo; A Meeker; J Strosberg Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: Maria A Kouvaraki; Jaffer A Ajani; Paulo Hoff; Robert Wolff; Douglas B Evans; Richard Lozano; James C Yao Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Harun Ilhan; Sebastian Lehner; László Papp; Norbert Zsótér; Imke Schatka; Dirk O Muegge; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Andreas K Buck; Peter Bartenstein; Frank Bengel; Markus Essler; Constantin Lapa; Ralph A Bundschuh Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Usman Bashir; Oliver Foot; Olga Wise; Muhammad M Siddique; Emma Mclean; Andrea Bille; Vicky Goh; Gary J Cook Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: C Schraml; N F Schwenzer; O Sperling; P Aschoff; M P Lichy; M Müller; C Brendle; M K Werner; C D Claussen; C Pfannenberg Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Vincent Vandecaveye; Raphaëla C Dresen; Elin Pauwels; Sofie Van Binnebeek; Ragna Vanslembrouck; Kristof Baete; Felix M Mottaghy; Paul M Clement; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Eric Van Cutsem; Chris Verslype; Frederik De Keyzer; Christophe M Deroose Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-05
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: Charlotte Atkinson; Balaji Ganeshan; Raymond Endozo; Simon Wan; Matthew D Aldridge; Ashley M Groves; Jamshed B Bomanji; Mark N Gaze Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Virginia Liberini; Bruno De Santi; Osvaldo Rampado; Elena Gallio; Beatrice Dionisi; Francesco Ceci; Giulia Polverari; Philippe Thuillier; Filippo Molinari; Désirée Deandreis Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2021-02-27
Authors: Jad S Husseini; Bárbara Juarez Amorim; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Vinay Prabhu; David Groshar; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Lina García Cañamaque; José Ramón García Garzón; William E Palmer; Pedram Heidari; Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih; Jacob Sosna; Cristina Matushita; Juliano Cerci; Marcelo Queiroz; Valdair Francisco Muglia; Marcello H Nogueira-Barbosa; Ronald J H Borra; Thomas C Kwee; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Laura Evangelista; Marco Salvatore; Alberto Cuocolo; Andrea Soricelli; Christian Herold; Andrea Laghi; Marius Mayerhoefer; Umar Mahmood; Ciprian Catana; Heike E Daldrup-Link; Bruce Rosen; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236