» Articles » PMID: 34070751

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
Specialty Radiology
Date 2021 Jun 2
PMID 34070751
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

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.

References
1.
Jadvar H, Colletti P, Delgado-Bolton R, Esposito G, Krause B, Iagaru A . Appropriate Use Criteria for F-FDG PET/CT in Restaging and Treatment Response Assessment of Malignant Disease. J Nucl Med. 2017; 58(12):2026-2037. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.197988. View

2.
Baratto L, Duan H, Ferri V, Khalighi M, Iagaru A . The Effect of Various β Values on Image Quality and Semiquantitative Measurements in 68Ga-RM2 and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI Images Reconstructed With a Block Sequential Regularized Expectation Maximization Algorithm. Clin Nucl Med. 2020; 45(7):506-513. DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003075. View

3.
Lantos J, Mittra E, Levin C, Iagaru A . Standard OSEM vs. regularized PET image reconstruction: qualitative and quantitative comparison using phantom data and various clinical radiopharmaceuticals. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 8(2):110-118. PMC: 5944826. View

4.
Hope T, Bergsland E, Bozkurt M, Graham M, Heaney A, Herrmann K . Appropriate Use Criteria for Somatostatin Receptor PET Imaging in Neuroendocrine Tumors. J Nucl Med. 2017; 59(1):66-74. PMC: 6910630. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.202275. View

5.
Levin C, Maramraju S, Khalighi M, Deller T, Delso G, Jansen F . Design Features and Mutual Compatibility Studies of the Time-of-Flight PET Capable GE SIGNA PET/MR System. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016; 35(8):1907-14. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2537811. View