4.7 Article

Comparison of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET and 111In-DTPAOC (Octreoscan) SPECT in patients with neuroendocrine tumours

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-007-0450-1

关键词

neuroendocrine tumours; carcinoid; octreotide; gallium-68; indium-111

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) can be imaged with scintigraphy using radiolabelled somatostatin analogues. The aim of our study was to compare the value of Ga-68-DOTATOC PET and In-111-DTPAOC SPECT (Octreoscan) in the detection of NET manifestations. Methods Twenty-seven NET patients were prospectively examined. Ga-68-DOTATOC PET and In-111-DTPAOC SPECT were performed using standard techniques. Treatment was not applied in between. Mean and maximum standardised uptake values (SUVs) were calculated for PET findings. Tumour/non-tumour ratios were calculated for SPECT findings. Findings were compared by a region-by-region analysis and verified with histopathology, CT and MRI within 21 days. Results SUVs of positive lesions on Ga-68-DOTATOC PET ranged from 0.7 to 29.3 (mean SUV) and from 0.9 to 34.4 (maximum SUV). Tumour/non-tumour ratios on In-111-DTPAOC SPECT ranged from 1.8 to 7.3. In imaging lung and skeletal manifestations, Ga-68-DOTATOC PET was more efficient than In-111-DTPAOC SPECT. All discrepant lung findings and 77.8% of discrepant osseous findings were verified as true positive PET interpretations. In regional comparison of liver and brain, Ga-68-DOTATOC PET and In-111-DTPAOC SPECT were identical. In lymph nodes, the pancreas and the gastro-intestinal system, different values of the two techniques were not indicated in regional analyses. In a single patient, surgical interventions were changed on the basis of Ga-68-DOTATOC PET findings. Conclusion Ga-68-DOTATOC PET is superior to In-111-DTPAOC SPECT in the detection of NET manifestations in the lung and skeleton and similar for the detection of NET manifestations in the liver and brain. Ga-68-DOTATOC PET is advantageous in guiding the clinical management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据