ICEECE2012 Poster Presentations Endocrine tumours and neoplasia (112 abstracts)
National Cancer Institute “Fondazione G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy.
Octreoscan is currently the gold standard for diagnosis of somatostatin receptor positive NET but it is limited by a lower spatial resolution and physiological uptake noises. DOTATATE is a somatostatin analogue, radiolabelled with 68Ga and adapted for PET imaging.
Aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET compared to Octreoscan in NET.
Fifty-one patients with NET (40 sporadic, 17 MEN1) of different origin were enrolled. 68Ga-DOTATATE PET was performed in all cases by acquiring whole body studies 4060 min after the radioligand i.v. injection (74111 MBq). Octreoscan was also performed in 27/51 patients using injection of Indium-111-DTPA-Phe1-Octreoscanreotide (120200 MBq). Examinations results were rated considering histology, CT/MR examination and clinical follow-up.
The patient based sensitivity and specificity of PET was 77% and 100%,respectively; the lesion based sensitivity was 64% with a specificity of 85%. Positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 65%, respectively. The sensitivity was ~100% in pancreas and gut, ~75% in lung and thyroid, <50% in stomach. In the subgroup undergone both PET and Octreoscan, the result was concordant in 21 and discordant in 6 cases. The discordant cases were 5 PET positive/Octreoscan negative (3 pancreatic NET, 2 medullary thyroid cancer) and 1 PET negative/Octreoscan positive (atypical lung carcinoid). In PET-positive patients, a significant inverse correlation between SUVmax and Ki67 was recordered (P<0.01). At ROC analysis, SUVmax in patients with progressive disease was ≤17 while it was >17 in patients with stable or responsive disease (P<0.01).
In patients with NET 68Ga-DOTATATE PET shows higher diagnostic performance than Octreoscan and is suggested to predict clinical behaviour of the tumor.
Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.