4.7 Article

Dual [68Ga]DOTATATE and [18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a multicentre validation of the NETPET score

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 128, Issue 4, Pages 549-555

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-02061-5

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study validates the NETPET score as a prognostic biomarker in metastatic GEPNENs, capturing the complexity of dual PET imaging.
Background Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEPNENs) are heterogeneous in clinical course, biology, and outcomes. The NETPET score predicts survival by scoring uptake on dual [Ga-68]DOTATATE and [F-18]FDG PET/CT scans. We aimed to validate previous single-centre findings in a multicentre, international study. Methods Dual scans were assigned a NETPET score of P1 (DOTATATE positive/FDG negative), P2-4 (DOTATATE positive/FDG positive), or P5 (DOTATATE negative/FDG positive). NETPET score, histological grade, age at diagnosis, and presence/absence of extrahepatic disease were compared to overall survival/time to progression on univariate and multivariate analysis. Results 319 metastatic/unresectable GEPNEN patients were included. The NETPET score was significantly associated with overall survival and time to progression on univariate and multivariate analysis (all p < 0.01). Median overall survival/time to progression was 101.8/25.5 months for P1, 46.5/16.7 months for P2-4, and 11.5/6.6 months for P5. Histological grade correlated with overall survival and time to progression on univariate and multivariate analysis (all p < 0.01), while presence/absence of extrahepatic disease did not. Age at diagnosis correlated with overall survival on univariate and multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). The NETPET score also correlated with histological grade (p < 0.001). Conclusion This study validates the NETPET score as a prognostic biomarker in metastatic GEPNENs, capturing the complexity of dual PET imaging.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available