Sertac Asa1, Kerim Sonmezoglu2, Lebriz Uslu-Besli1, Onur Erdem Sahin1, Emre Karayel1, Huseyin Pehlivanoglu1, Sait Sager1, Levent Kabasakal1, Meltem Ocak3, Haluk B Sayman1. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Fatih, 34098, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Fatih, 34098, Istanbul, Turkey. drkerim@istanbul.edu.tr. 3. Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Istanbul University, Beyazit, 34116, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: PET imaging with F-18 DOPA (FDOPA) and Ga-68 DOTATATE (TATE) shows the most promising results to detect medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) recurrence. We performed this comparative study to detect the site of recurrent or metastatic disease in MTC patients with elevated serum calcitonin (Ctn) and/or carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels. METHODS: We studied 46 MTC patients (25 women, 21 men) with elevated Ctn and/or CEA levels during follow-up who had both FDOPA and TATE PET/CT scans for re-staging purposes. RESULTS: FDOPA PET imaging yielded an overall sensitivity of 86.8%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 61.5%, and accuracy of 89.1%, while TATE PET scan had the same values as 84.2%, 87.5%, 96.9%, 53.8%, and 84.6%, respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two modalities with the exception of the specificity value that was higher for FDOPA imaging. In a subgroup of patients with overt Ctn or CEA elevation, sensitivity of FDOPA increased significantly, whereas TATE sensitivity did not change. FDOPA PET imaging was significantly superior in detecting liver and regional lymph node (LN) metastases, while TATE PET scan was significantly better in the skeletal metastases. Early FDOPA demonstrated 11 invisible lesions on late FDOPA. CONCLUSION: Both FDOPA and TATE PET/CT imaging are useful to localize recurrences in MTC patients. While TATE imaging is superior to reveal skeletal disease, FDOPA seems better in liver and regional LN metastases; therefore, the two modalities appear complementary in monitoring MTC patients with elevated serum Ctn and/or CEA levels.
OBJECTIVE: PET imaging with F-18 DOPA (FDOPA) and Ga-68 DOTATATE (TATE) shows the most promising results to detect medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) recurrence. We performed this comparative study to detect the site of recurrent or metastatic disease in MTC patients with elevated serum calcitonin (Ctn) and/or carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels. METHODS: We studied 46 MTC patients (25 women, 21 men) with elevated Ctn and/or CEA levels during follow-up who had both FDOPA and TATE PET/CT scans for re-staging purposes. RESULTS: FDOPA PET imaging yielded an overall sensitivity of 86.8%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 61.5%, and accuracy of 89.1%, while TATE PET scan had the same values as 84.2%, 87.5%, 96.9%, 53.8%, and 84.6%, respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two modalities with the exception of the specificity value that was higher for FDOPA imaging. In a subgroup of patients with overt Ctn or CEA elevation, sensitivity of FDOPA increased significantly, whereas TATE sensitivity did not change. FDOPA PET imaging was significantly superior in detecting liver and regional lymph node (LN) metastases, while TATE PET scan was significantly better in the skeletal metastases. Early FDOPA demonstrated 11 invisible lesions on late FDOPA. CONCLUSION: Both FDOPA and TATE PET/CT imaging are useful to localize recurrences in MTC patients. While TATE imaging is superior to reveal skeletal disease, FDOPA seems better in liver and regional LN metastases; therefore, the two modalities appear complementary in monitoring MTC patients with elevated serum Ctn and/or CEA levels.
Authors: Markus Luster; Wolfram Karges; Katrin Zeich; Sandra Pauls; Frederik A Verburg; Henning Dralle; Gerhard Glatting; Andreas K Buck; Christoph Solbach; Bernd Neumaier; Sven N Reske; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: Thyroid Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Samuel A Wells; Sylvia L Asa; Henning Dralle; Rossella Elisei; Douglas B Evans; Robert F Gagel; Nancy Lee; Andreas Machens; Jeffrey F Moley; Furio Pacini; Friedhelm Raue; Karin Frank-Raue; Bruce Robinson; M Sara Rosenthal; Massimo Santoro; Martin Schlumberger; Manisha Shah; Steven G Waguespack Journal: Thyroid Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Luca Giovanella; Giorgio Treglia; Ioannis Iakovou; Jasna Mihailovic; Frederik A Verburg; Markus Luster Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Dirk Mueller; Ingo Klette; Richard P Baum; M Gottschaldt; Michael K Schultz; Wouter A P Breeman Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Anja T Golubić; Eva Pasini Nemir; Marijan Žuvić; Andrea Mutvar; Sanja Kusačić Kuna; Marija Despot; Tatjana Samardžić; Dražen Huić Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Klaas P Koopmans; Jan Willem B de Groot; John T M Plukker; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Ido P Kema; Wim J Sluiter; Pieter L Jager; Thera P Links Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sergiy V Kushchayev; Yevgeniya S Kushchayeva; Sri Harsha Tella; Tetiana Glushko; Karel Pacak; Oleg M Teytelboym Journal: J Thyroid Res Date: 2019-07-07
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Rudolf A Werner; Sebastian E Serfling; Yingjun Zhi; Felix Megerle; Martin Fassnacht; Andreas K Buck Journal: Endocrine Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 3.925