Results of a Prospective Trial to Compare Ga-DOTA-TATE with SiPM-Based PET/CT Vs. Conventional PET/CT in Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
We prospectively enrolled patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). They underwent a single Ga-DOTA-TATE injection followed by dual imaging and were randomly scanned using first either the conventional or the silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), followed by imaging using the other system. A total of 94 patients, 44 men and 50 women, between 35 and 91 years old (mean ± SD: 63 ± 11.2), were enrolled. Fifty-two out of ninety-four participants underwent SiPM PET/CT first and a total of 162 lesions were detected using both scanners. Forty-two out of ninety-four participants underwent conventional PET/CT first and a total of 108 lesions were detected using both scanners. Regardless of whether SiPM-based PET/CT was used first or second, maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) of lesions measured on SiPM was on average 20% higher when comparing two scanners with all enrolled patients, and the difference was statistically significant. SiPM-based PET/CT detected 19 more lesions in 13 patients compared with conventional PET/CT. No lesions were only identified by conventional PET/CT. In conclusion, we observed higher SUV for lesions measured from SiPM PET/CT compared with conventional PET/CT regardless of the order of the scans. SiPM PET/CT allowed for identification of more lesions than conventional PET/CT. While delayed imaging can lead to higher SUV in cancer lesions, in the series of lesions identified when SiPM PET/CT was used first, this was not the case; therefore, the data suggest superior performance of the SiPM PET/CT scanner in visualizing and quantifying lesions.
Application of PET/CT in Preoperative Evaluation and Diagnosis of Gastric Cancer.
Zhou X, Zhang Y, Zhao X, Zhou L, Jia X, Pan L Comput Math Methods Med. 2022; 2022:8974859.
PMID: 35419077 PMC: 9001069. DOI: 10.1155/2022/8974859.
Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation.
Rogasch J, Hofheinz F, van Heek L, Voltin C, Boellaard R, Kobe C Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(2).
PMID: 35204542 PMC: 8871060. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12020451.