Yuanyuan Jiang1,2, Qingxing Liu1,2, Guochang Wang1,2, Huimin Sui1,2, Rongxi Wang1,2, Jiarou Wang1,2, Zhaohui Zhu3,4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. 2. State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Beijing, 100730, China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. 13611093752@163.com. 4. State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Beijing, 100730, China. 13611093752@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD, a dual somatostatin receptor 2- and integrin αVβ3-targeting tracer, to 68 Ga-DOTATATE in a single group of patients with gastroenteropancreatic (GEP)-neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). METHODS: Thirty-five patients with histologically confirmed GEP-NETs (5 grade 1, 28 grade 2, and 2 grade 3 tumours) were prospectively enrolled with informed consent. The primary tumour mainly originated from the pancreas and rectum. All patients were scanned with both 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD PET/CT and 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT within a week and compared on a head-to-head basis. Sixteen patients also had conventional 18F-FDG PET/CT. Images were evaluated semi-quantitatively using maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of tumour and tumour-to-background ratio. RESULTS: All patients had at least one positive lesion on each of the two scans. A total of 1190 and 1106 lesions were detected on 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD images and 68 Ga-DOTATATE images, respectively (P = 0.152). 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD PET/CT revealed significantly more lesions in the liver than 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT (634 vs. 532, P = 0.021). Both tracers produced comparable results for detecting primary tumours (20 vs. 20, P = 1.000), lymph node metastases (101 vs. 102, P = 0.655), and bone metastases (381 vs. 398, P = 0.244). The tumour SUVmax in 12 patients was significantly higher for 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD than for 68 Ga-DOTATATE (27.2 ± 13.6 vs. 19.5 ± 10.0, P < 0.001); among them, 9 had 18F-FDG PET/CT and all were found to be FDG-positive. The remaining 23 patients had significantly higher 68 Ga-DOTATATE uptake than 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD uptake (22.3 ± 16.4 vs. 11.9 ± 7.5, P < 0.001); among them, 7 had 18F-FDG PET/CT and 6 were FDG-negative. Generally, 68 Ga-DOTATATE demonstrated higher tumour SUVmax than 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD (20.8 ± 16.0 vs. 14.2 ± 8.9, P < 0.001), including primary tumours, liver lesions, lymph node lesions, and bone lesions. However, the tumour-to-background ratio of liver lesions was significantly higher when using 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD compared with that when using 68 Ga-DOTATATE (8.4 ± 5.5 vs. 4.7 ± 3.7, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD performed better than 68 Ga-DOTATATE in detection of liver metastases with a higher tumour-to-background ratio. Moreover, 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD tended to demonstrate higher uptake over 68 Ga-DOTATATE in FDG-avid NETs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dual SSTR2 and Integrin αvβ3 Targeting PET/CT Imaging (NCT02817945, registered 5 November 2018). URL OF REGISTRY: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02817945.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD, a dual somatostatin receptor 2- and integrin αVβ3-targeting tracer, to 68 Ga-DOTATATE in a single group of patients with gastroenteropancreatic (GEP)-neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). METHODS: Thirty-five patients with histologically confirmed GEP-NETs (5 grade 1, 28 grade 2, and 2 grade 3 tumours) were prospectively enrolled with informed consent. The primary tumour mainly originated from the pancreas and rectum. All patients were scanned with both 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD PET/CT and 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT within a week and compared on a head-to-head basis. Sixteen patients also had conventional 18F-FDG PET/CT. Images were evaluated semi-quantitatively using maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of tumour and tumour-to-background ratio. RESULTS: All patients had at least one positive lesion on each of the two scans. A total of 1190 and 1106 lesions were detected on 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD images and 68 Ga-DOTATATE images, respectively (P = 0.152). 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD PET/CT revealed significantly more lesions in the liver than 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT (634 vs. 532, P = 0.021). Both tracers produced comparable results for detecting primary tumours (20 vs. 20, P = 1.000), lymph node metastases (101 vs. 102, P = 0.655), and bone metastases (381 vs. 398, P = 0.244). The tumour SUVmax in 12 patients was significantly higher for 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD than for 68 Ga-DOTATATE (27.2 ± 13.6 vs. 19.5 ± 10.0, P < 0.001); among them, 9 had 18F-FDG PET/CT and all were found to be FDG-positive. The remaining 23 patients had significantly higher 68 Ga-DOTATATE uptake than 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD uptake (22.3 ± 16.4 vs. 11.9 ± 7.5, P < 0.001); among them, 7 had 18F-FDG PET/CT and 6 were FDG-negative. Generally, 68 Ga-DOTATATE demonstrated higher tumour SUVmax than 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD (20.8 ± 16.0 vs. 14.2 ± 8.9, P < 0.001), including primary tumours, liver lesions, lymph node lesions, and bone lesions. However, the tumour-to-background ratio of liver lesions was significantly higher when using 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD compared with that when using 68 Ga-DOTATATE (8.4 ± 5.5 vs. 4.7 ± 3.7, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD performed better than 68 Ga-DOTATATE in detection of liver metastases with a higher tumour-to-background ratio. Moreover, 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD tended to demonstrate higher uptake over 68 Ga-DOTATATE in FDG-avid NETs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dual SSTR2 and Integrin αvβ3 Targeting PET/CT Imaging (NCT02817945, registered 5 November 2018). URL OF REGISTRY: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02817945.
Authors: Thorsten D Poeppel; Ina Binse; Stephan Petersenn; Harald Lahner; Matthias Schott; Gerald Antoch; Wolfgang Brandau; Andreas Bockisch; Christian Boy Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-09 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: Dik J Kwekkeboom; Boen L Kam; Martijn van Essen; Jaap J M Teunissen; Casper H J van Eijck; Roelf Valkema; Marion de Jong; Wouter W de Herder; Eric P Krenning Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 5.678
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: 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: Dik J Kwekkeboom; Eric P Krenning; Rachida Lebtahi; Paul Komminoth; Beata Kos-Kudła; Wouter W de Herder; Ursula Plöckinger Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: V Zamora; A Cabanne; R Salanova; C Bestani; E Domenichini; F Marmissolle; N Giacomi; J O'Connor; G Méndez; E Roca Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2009-10-12 Impact factor: 4.088
Authors: Richard P Baum; Harshad R Kulkarni; Aviral Singh; Daniel Kaemmerer; Dirk Mueller; Vikas Prasad; Merten Hommann; Franz C Robiller; Karin Niepsch; Holger Franz; Arthur Jochems; Philippe Lambin; Dieter Hörsch Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-02-15