BACKGROUND: Our goal is to quantitatively compare radiotracer biodistributions within tumors and major normal organs on pretherapy 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET to post-therapy 177 Lu-DOTATATE single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients receiving peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). METHODS: PET/CT at ~ 60 min postinjection of Ga-68 DOTATATE and research 177 Lu-SPECT/CT imaging ~ at 4 h (SPECT1) and ~ 24 h (SPECT2) post-cycle#1 were available. Manual contours of lesions on baseline CT or MRI were applied to co-registered SPECT/CT and PET/CT followed by deep learning-based CT auto-segmentation of organs. Tumor-to-normal organ ratios (TNR) were calculated from standardized uptake values (SUV) mean and SUV peak for tumor, and SUV mean for non-tumoral liver (nliver), spleen and kidney. RESULTS: There were 90 lesons in 24 patients with progressive metastatic neuroendocrine tumor. The correlation between PET and SPECT SUV TNRs were poor/moderate: PET versus SPECT1 R 2 = 0.19, 0.21, 0.29; PET versus SPECT2 R 2 = 0.06, 0.16, 0.33 for TNR nliver ,TNR spleen ,TNR kidney , respectively. Across all patients, the average value of the TNR measured on PET was significantly lower than on SPECT at both time points ( P < 0.001). Using SUV mean for tumor, average TNR values and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were PET: TNR nliver = 3.5 [CI: 3.0-3.9], TNR spleen = 1.3 [CI, 1.2-1.5], TNR kidney = 1.7 [CI: 1.6-1.9]; SPECT1: TNR nliver = 10 [CI: 8.2-11.7], TNR spleen = 2.9 [CI: 2.5-3.4], TNR kidney = 2.8 [CI: 2.3-3.3]; SPECT2: TNR nliver = 16.9 [CI: 14-19.9], TNR spleen = 3.6 [CI: 3-4.2], TNR kidney = 3.6 [CI: 3.0-4.2]. Comparison of PET and SPECT results in a sphere phantom study demonstrated that these differences are not attributed to imaging modality. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in TNR exist for the theranostic pair, with significantly higher SUV TNR on 177 Lu SPECT compared with 68 Ga PET. We postulate this phenomenon is due to temporal differences in DOTATATE uptake and internalization in tumor as compared to normal organs.
BACKGROUND: Our goal is to quantitatively compare radiotracer biodistributions within tumors and major normal organs on pretherapy 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET to post-therapy 177 Lu-DOTATATE single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients receiving peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). METHODS: PET/CT at ~ 60 min postinjection of Ga-68 DOTATATE and research 177 Lu-SPECT/CT imaging ~ at 4 h (SPECT1) and ~ 24 h (SPECT2) post-cycle#1 were available. Manual contours of lesions on baseline CT or MRI were applied to co-registered SPECT/CT and PET/CT followed by deep learning-based CT auto-segmentation of organs. Tumor-to-normal organ ratios (TNR) were calculated from standardized uptake values (SUV) mean and SUV peak for tumor, and SUV mean for non-tumoral liver (nliver), spleen and kidney. RESULTS: There were 90 lesons in 24 patients with progressive metastatic neuroendocrine tumor. The correlation between PET and SPECT SUV TNRs were poor/moderate: PET versus SPECT1 R 2 = 0.19, 0.21, 0.29; PET versus SPECT2 R 2 = 0.06, 0.16, 0.33 for TNR nliver ,TNR spleen ,TNR kidney , respectively. Across all patients, the average value of the TNR measured on PET was significantly lower than on SPECT at both time points ( P < 0.001). Using SUV mean for tumor, average TNR values and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were PET: TNR nliver = 3.5 [CI: 3.0-3.9], TNR spleen = 1.3 [CI, 1.2-1.5], TNR kidney = 1.7 [CI: 1.6-1.9]; SPECT1: TNR nliver = 10 [CI: 8.2-11.7], TNR spleen = 2.9 [CI: 2.5-3.4], TNR kidney = 2.8 [CI: 2.3-3.3]; SPECT2: TNR nliver = 16.9 [CI: 14-19.9], TNR spleen = 3.6 [CI: 3-4.2], TNR kidney = 3.6 [CI: 3.0-4.2]. Comparison of PET and SPECT results in a sphere phantom study demonstrated that these differences are not attributed to imaging modality. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in TNR exist for the theranostic pair, with significantly higher SUV TNR on 177 Lu SPECT compared with 68 Ga PET. We postulate this phenomenon is due to temporal differences in DOTATATE uptake and internalization in tumor as compared to normal organs.
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Amanda Abbott; Karen Colucci; David L Bushnell; Linda Gardner; William S Graham; Sheila Lindsay; David C Metz; Daniel A Pryma; Michael G Stabin; Jonathan R Strosberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Samer Ezziddin; Jonas Lohmar; Charlotte J Yong-Hing; Amir Sabet; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Guido Kukuk; Hans-Jürgen Biersack; Stefan Guhlke; Karl Reichmann Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Daphne M V Huizing; Else A Aalbersberg; Bernies van der Hiel; Marcel P M Stokkel; Michelle W J Versleijen Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: C Kratochwil; M Stefanova; E Mavriopoulou; T Holland-Letz; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; A Afshar-Oromieh; W Mier; U Haberkorn; F L Giesel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Heribert Hänscheid; Reinhart A Sweeney; Michael Flentje; Andreas K Buck; Mario Löhr; Samuel Samnick; Michael Kreissl; Frederik A Verburg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Simone Krebs; Joseph A O'Donoghue; Evan Biegel; Bradley J Beattie; Diane Reidy; Serge K Lyashchenko; Jason S Lewis; Lisa Bodei; Wolfgang A Weber; Neeta Pandit-Taskar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 9.236