4.2 Article

The utility of PET/CT with 68Ga-DOTATOC in sarcoidosis: comparison with 67Ga-scintigraphy

Journal

ANNALS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Volume 30, Issue 8, Pages 544-552

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12149-016-1095-6

Keywords

Sarcoidosis; DOTATOC-PET/CT; Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy; Ga-scintigraphy

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K10346] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of Ga-68-DOTA-Tyr-octreotide (DOTATOC)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) with that of conventional Ga-67-scintigraphy (GS), and to correlate quantitative parameters on DOTATOC-PET/CT with clinical data, in patients with sarcoidosis. Twenty patients who were histologically and/or clinically diagnosed with sarcoidosis and underwent both DOTATOC-PET/CT and GS were analyzed in this study. The numbers of patients with positive findings for each organ were determined. The total numbers of involved nodal areas in the chest, as determined by DOTATOC-PET and gallium single-photon emission tomography (Ga-SPECT), were compared. The correlations between quantitative parameters on PET and clinical laboratory data were evaluated. DOTATOC-PET/CT was positive in 19 patients, being negative in only one patient with chronic inactive sarcoidosis, whereas GS was positive in 17 patients. DOTATOC-PET/CT visualized more lesions in lymph nodes, uvea, and muscles than did Ga-scintigraphy and identified more involved areas than did GS-SPECT (p < 0.0001). Whole-body active lesion volume showed a significant, but moderate correlation with angiotensin-converting enzyme level (rho = 0.64, p = 0.0044). PET/CT with DOTATOC may be superior to conventional GS in detecting sarcoidosis lesions, especially in lymph nodes, uvea, and muscles. Volumetric parameters in DOTATOC-PET/CT may be helpful in estimating the activity of sarcoidosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available