Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5)
Document Type
- Journal article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Keywords
- neuroendocrine tumor (3)
- PRRT (2)
- Positronen-Emissions-Tomografie (2)
- RADS (2)
- peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (2)
- theranostics (2)
- <sup>18</sup>F-FDG (1)
- <sup>68</sup>Ga-Pentixafor (1)
- CXCR4 (1)
- GCA (1)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin (5)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II (3)
- Deutsches Zentrum für Herzinsuffizienz (DZHI) (1)
- Institut für diagnostische und interventionelle Radiologie (Institut für Röntgendiagnostik) (1)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I (1)
- Pathologisches Institut (1)
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- 701983 (2)
We aimed to elucidate the diagnostic potential of the C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4)-directed positron emission tomography (PET) tracer \(^{68}\)Ga-Pentixafor in patients with poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC), relative to the established reference standard \(^{18}\)F-FDG PET/computed tomography (CT). In our database, we retrospectively identified 11 treatment-naïve patients with histologically proven NEC, who underwent \(^{18}\)F-FDG and CXCR4-directed PET/CT for staging and therapy planning. The images were analyzed on a per-patient and per-lesion basis and compared to immunohistochemical staining (IHC) of CXCR4 from PET-guided biopsies. \(^{68}\)Ga-Pentixafor visualized tumor lesions in 10/11 subjects, while \(^{18}\)F-FDG revealed sites of disease in all 11 patients. Although weak to moderate CXCR4 expression could be corroborated by IHC in 10/11 cases, \(^{18}\)F-FDG PET/CT detected significantly more tumor lesions (102 vs. 42; total lesions, n = 107; p < 0.001). Semi-quantitative analysis revealed markedly higher 18F-FDG uptake as compared to \(^{68}\)Ga-Pentixafor (maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUV) and tumor-to-background ratios (TBR) of cancerous lesions, SUVmax: 12.8 ± 9.8 vs. 5.2 ± 3.7; SUVmean: 7.4 ± 5.4 vs. 3.1 ± 3.2, p < 0.001; and, TBR 7.2 ± 7.9 vs. 3.4 ± 3.0, p < 0.001). Non-invasive imaging of CXCR4 expression in NEC is inferior to the reference standard \(^{18}\)F-FDG PET/CT.
Both prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)- and somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-targeted positron emission tomography (PET) imaging agents for staging and restaging of prostate carcinoma or neuroendocrine tumors, respectively, are seeing rapidly expanding use. In addition to diagnostic applications, both classes of radiotracers can be used to triage patients for theranostic endoradiotherapy. While interpreting PSMA- or SSTR-targeted PET/computed tomography (CT) scans, the reader has to be aware of certain pitfalls. Adding to the complexity of the interpretation of those imaging agents, both normal biodistribution, and also false-positive and -negative findings differ between PSMA- and SSTR-targeted PET radiotracers. Herein summarized under the umbrella term molecular imaging reporting and data systems (MI-RADS), two novel RADS classifications for PSMA- and SSTR-targeted PET imaging are described (PSMA- and SSTR-RADS). Both framework systems may contribute to increase the level of a reader’s confidence and to navigate the imaging interpreter through indeterminate lesions, so that appropriate workup for equivocal findings can be pursued. Notably, PSMA- and SSTR-RADS are structured in a reciprocal fashion, i.e. if the reader is familiar with one system, the other system can readily be applied as well. In the present review we will discuss the most common pitfalls on PSMA- and SSTR-targeted PET/CT, briefly introduce PSMA- and SSTR-RADS, and define a future role of the umbrella framework MI-RADS compared to other harmonization systems.
More than 25 years after the first peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), the concept of somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-directed imaging and therapy for neuroendocrine tumors (NET) is seeing rapidly increasing use. To maximize the full potential of its theranostic promise, efforts in recent years have expanded recommendations in current guidelines and included the evaluation of novel theranostic radiotracers for imaging and treatment of NET. Moreover, the introduction of standardized reporting framework systems may harmonize PET reading, address pitfalls in interpreting SSTR-PET/CT scans and guide the treating physician in selecting PRRT candidates. Notably, the concept of PRRT has also been applied beyond oncology, e.g. for treatment of inflammatory conditions like sarcoidosis. Future perspectives may include the efficacy evaluation of PRRT compared to other common treatment options for NET, novel strategies for closer monitoring of potential side effects, the introduction of novel radiotracers with beneficial pharmacodynamic and kinetic properties or the use of supervised machine learning approaches for outcome prediction. This article reviews how the SSTR-directed theranostic concept is currently applied and also reflects on recent developments that hold promise for the future of theranostics in this context.
Whole-Body [\(^{18}\)F]FDG PET/CT Can Alter Diagnosis in Patients with Suspected Rheumatic Disease
(2021)
The 2-deoxy-d-[\(^{18}\)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is widely utilized to assess the vascular and articular inflammatory burden of patients with a suspected diagnosis of rheumatic disease. We aimed to elucidate the impact of [\(^{18}\)F]FDG PET/CT on change in initially suspected diagnosis in patients at the time of the scan. Thirty-four patients, who had undergone [\(^{18}\)F]FDG PET/CT, were enrolled and the initially suspected diagnosis prior to [18F]FDG PET/CT was compared to the final diagnosis. In addition, a semi-quantitative analysis including vessel wall-to-liver (VLR) and joint-to-liver (JLR) ratios was also conducted. Prior to [\(^{18}\)F]FDG PET/CT, 22/34 (64.7%) of patients did not have an established diagnosis, whereas in 7/34 (20.6%), polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) was suspected, and in 5/34 (14.7%), giant cell arteritis (GCA) was suspected by the referring rheumatologists. After [\(^{18}\)F]FDG PET/CT, the diagnosis was GCA in 19/34 (55.9%), combined GCA and PMR (GCA + PMR) in 9/34 (26.5%) and PMR in the remaining 6/34 (17.6%). As such, [\(^{18}\)F]FDG PET/CT altered suspected diagnosis in 28/34 (82.4%), including in all unclear cases. VLR of patients whose final diagnosis was GCA tended to be significantly higher when compared to VLR in PMR (GCA, 1.01 ± 0.08 (95%CI, 0.95–1.1) vs. PMR, 0.92 ± 0.1 (95%CI, 0.85–0.99), p = 0.07), but not when compared to PMR + GCA (1.04 ± 0.14 (95%CI, 0.95–1.13), p = 1). JLR of individuals finally diagnosed with PMR (0.94 ± 0.16, (95%CI, 0.83–1.06)), however, was significantly increased relative to JLR in GCA (0.58 ± 0.04 (95%CI, 0.55–0.61)) and GCA + PMR (0.64 ± 0.09 (95%CI, 0.57–0.71); p < 0.0001, respectively). In individuals with a suspected diagnosis of rheumatic disease, an inflammatory-directed [\(^{18}\)F]FDG PET/CT can alter diagnosis in the majority of the cases, particularly in subjects who were referred because of diagnostic uncertainty. Semi-quantitative assessment may be helpful in establishing a final diagnosis of PMR, supporting the notion that a quantitative whole-body read-out may be useful in unclear cases.
Purpose
For somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), a standardized framework termed SSTR-reporting and data system (RADS) has been proposed. We aimed to elucidate the impact of a RADS-focused training on reader’s anxiety to report on SSTR-PET/CT, the motivational beliefs in learning such a system, whether it increases reader’s confidence, and its implementation in clinical routine.
Procedures
A 3-day training course focusing on SSTR-RADS was conducted. Self-report questionnaires were handed out prior to the course (Pre) and thereafter (Post). The impact of the training on the following categories was evaluated: (1) test anxiety to report on SSTR-PET/CT, (2) motivational beliefs, (3) increase in reader’s confidence, and (4) clinical implementation. To assess the effect size of the course, Cohen’s d was calculated (small, d = 0.20; large effect, d = 0.80).
Results
Of 22 participants, Pre and Post were returned by 21/22 (95.5%). In total, 14/21 (66.7%) were considered inexperienced (IR, < 1 year experience in reading SSTR-PET/CTs) and 7/21 (33.3%) as experienced readers (ER, > 1 year). Applying SSTR-RADS, a large decrease in anxiety to report on SSTR-PET/CT was noted for IR (d = − 0.74, P = 0.02), but not for ER (d = 0.11, P = 0.78). For the other three categories motivational beliefs, reader’s confidence, and clinical implementation, agreement rates were already high prior to the training and persisted throughout the course (P ≥ 0.21).
Conclusions
A framework-focused reader training can reduce anxiety to report on SSTR-PET/CTs, in particular for inexperienced readers. This may allow for a more widespread adoption of this system, e.g., in multicenter trials for better intra- and interindividual comparison of scan results.