Abstract
Background
Clinicians may order Octreoscan or positron emission tomography (PET) scan for staging patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). 111In-Octreoscan (Octreoscan) identifies tumors by radiolabeled targeting of somatostatin receptors, while 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET) measures differential tissue glucose transport. We assessed the sensitivity of both nuclear imaging modalities with pathologic correlation to define the best initial choice for NET staging after standard cross-sectional imaging.
Methods
We identified all patients diagnosed with NETs of gastrointestinal or pancreatic origin who underwent nuclear imaging staging by Octreoscan and/or PET from 2000 to 2013. Imaging results were correlated with tumor differentiation and grade of pathology specimens.
Results
Imaging and pathology results were identified for 153 patients. Of these, 131 underwent Octreoscan, 43 underwent PET, and 21 patients had both performed. Overall sensitivity of Octreoscan and PET for NET detection was similar (77 vs. 72 %; p = not significant). For well-differentiated NETs, Octreoscan (n = 124) demonstrated sensitivity of 80 vs. 60 % (p = 0.28) for PET (n = 30). For poorly-differentiated NETs, Octreoscan (n = 7) proved significantly less sensitive than PET (n = 13) (57 vs. 100 %; p = 0.02). The sensitivity of Octreoscan versus PET varied similarly when analyzed by WHO tumor grade: Grade 1 (79 vs. 52 %; p = 0.16), Grade 2 (85 vs. 86 %; p = not significant), and Grade 3 (57 vs. 100 %; p = 0.02).
Conclusions
Tumor differentiation can be used to guide selection of nuclear imaging modalities for staging gastrointestinal and pancreatic NETs. Octreoscan appears more sensitive than 18FDG-PET for well-differentiated NETs, whereas 18FDG-PET demonstrates superior sensitivity for poorly-differentiated NETs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnold R. Endocrine tumours of the gastrointestinal tract. Introduction: definition, historical aspects, classification, staging, prognosis and therapeutic options. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;19(4):491–505.
Modlin IM, Oberg K, Chung DC, et al. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(1):61–72.
Klimstra DS, Modlin IR, Coppola D, Lloyd RV, Suster S. The pathologic classification of neuroendocrine tumors: a review of nomenclature, grading, and staging systems. Pancreas. 2010;39(6):707–712.
Turaga KK, Kvols LK. Recent progress in the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):113–132.
Reubi JC, Waser B, Schaer JC, Laissue JA. Somatostatin receptor sst1-sst5 expression in normal and neoplastic human tissues using receptor autoradiography with subtype-selective ligands. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28(7):836–846.
Papotti M, Bongiovanni M, Volante M, et al. Expression of somatostatin receptor types 1-5 in 81 cases of gastrointestinal and pancreatic endocrine tumors. A correlative immunohistochemical and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis. Virchows Arch. 2002;440(5):461–475.
Oberg K, Eriksson B. Nuclear medicine in the detection, staging and treatment of gastrointestinal carcinoid tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;19(2):265–276.
Rufini V, Calcagni ML, Baum RP. Imaging of neuroendocrine tumors. Semin Nucl Med. 2006;36(3):228–247.
Kwekkeboom DJ, Krenning EP, Lebtahi R, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for the standards of care in neuroendocrine tumors: peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with radiolabeled somatostatin analogs. Neuroendocrinology. 2009;90(2):220–226.
Krenning EP, Kwekkeboom DJ, Bakker WH, et al. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy with [111In-DTPA-D-Phe1]- and [123I-Tyr3]-octreotide: the Rotterdam experience with more than 1000 patients. Eur J Nucl Med. 1993;20(8):716–731.
Rust E, Hubele F, Marzano E, et al. Nuclear medicine imaging of gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. The key role of cellular differentiation and tumor grade: from theory to clinical practice. Cancer Imaging. 2012;12:173–184.
Adams S, Baum RP, Hertel A, Schumm-Drager PM, Usadel KH, Hor G. Metabolic (PET) and receptor (SPET) imaging of well- and less well-differentiated tumours: comparison with the expression of the Ki-67 antigen. Nucl Med Commun. 1998;19(7):641–647.
Eriksson B, Bergstrom M, Sundin A, et al. The role of PET in localization of neuroendocrine and adrenocortical tumors. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002;970:159–169.
Oberg K, Castellano D. Current knowledge on diagnosis and staging of neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2011;30 Suppl 1:3–7.
Bosman F, Carneiro F, Hruban R, Theise N, eds. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2010.
Ezziddin S, Logvinski T, Yong-Hing C, et al. Factors predicting tracer uptake in somatostatin receptor and MIBG scintigraphy of metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(2):223–233.
Reubi JC, Kvols LK, Waser B, et al. Detection of somatostatin receptors in surgical and percutaneous needle biopsy samples of carcinoids and islet cell carcinomas. Cancer Res. 1990;50(18):5969–5977.
de Herder WW, Hofland LJ, van der Lely AJ, Lamberts SW. Somatostatin receptors in gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2003;10(4):451–458.
Adams S, Baum R, Rink T, Schumm-Drager PM, Usadel KH, Hor G. Limited value of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the imaging of neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25(1):79–83.
Kayani I, Bomanji JB, Groves A, et al. Functional imaging of neuroendocrine tumors with combined PET/CT using 68Ga-DOTATATE (DOTA-DPhe1,Tyr3-octreotate) and 18F-FDG. Cancer. 2008;112(11):2447–2455.
Pasquali C, Rubello D, Sperti C, et al. Neuroendocrine tumor imaging: can 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography detect tumors with poor prognosis and aggressive behavior? World J Surg. 1998;22(6):588–592.
Shaverdian N, Pinchot SN, Zarebczan B, Gillis HC, Schiro A, Chen H. Utility of (1)(1)(1)indium-pentetreotide scintigraphy in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(2):640–645.
Scanga DR, Martin WH, Delbeke D. Value of FDG PET imaging in the management of patients with thyroid, neuroendocrine, and neural crest tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2004;29(2):86–90.
Belhocine T, Foidart J, Rigo P, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy for diagnosing and staging carcinoid tumours: correlations with the pathological indexes p53 and Ki-67. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23(8):727–734.
Binderup T, Knigge U, Loft A, et al. Functional imaging of neuroendocrine tumors: a head-to-head comparison of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy, 123I-MIBG scintigraphy, and 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(5):704–712.
Binderup T, Knigge U, Loft A, Federspiel B, Kjaer A. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts survival of patients with neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(3):978–985.
Garin E, Le Jeune F, Devillers A, et al. Predictive value of 18F-FDG PET and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy in patients with metastatic endocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(6):858–864.
Asnacios A, Courbon F, Rochaix P, et al. Indium-111-pentetreotide scintigraphy and somatostatin receptor subtype 2 expression: new prognostic factors for malignant well-differentiated endocrine tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(6):963–970.
Disclosures
None.
Financial Support
This study is supported in part by the Katz Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Squires, M.H., Volkan Adsay, N., Schuster, D.M. et al. Octreoscan Versus FDG-PET for Neuroendocrine Tumor Staging: A Biological Approach. Ann Surg Oncol 22, 2295–2301 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4471-x
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4471-x