Next Article in Journal
Design of Liver Functional Reserve Estimation Technique Based on Optical Densitometry
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and PET/MRI on Initial Staging and Changes in Management of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Recommendations for Lung Ultrasound in Internal Medicine
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 10
Issue 8
10.3390/diagnostics10080598
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Somatostatin Receptor PET/CT Imaging for the Detection and Staging of Pancreatic NET: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Matteo Bauckneht
1,†,
Domenico Albano
2,†,
Salvatore Annunziata
3,†,
Giulia Santo
4,†,
Priscilla Guglielmo
5,†,
Viviana Frantellizzi
6,†,
Alessia Branca
4,†,
Cristina Ferrari
4,†,
Antonio Vento
7,†,
Alessia Mirabile
7,†,
Anna Giulia Nappi
4,†,
Laura Evangelista
8,*,†,
Pierpaolo Alongi
9,† and
Riccardo Laudicella
7,†
1
Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
2
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Brescia and Spedali Civili Brescia, 25123 Brescia, Italy
3
Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCSS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00168 Rome, Italy
4
Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70121 Bari, Italy
5
Nuclear Medicine Unit, AO Brotzu, 09134 Cagliari, Italy
6
Department of Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
7
Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and of Morpho-Functional Imaging, Nuclear Medicine Unit, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy
8
Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Medicine-DIMED, University of Padova, 35128 Padova, Italy
9
Unit of Nuclear Medicine, Fondazione Istituto G.Giglio, 90015 Cefalù, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
On the behalf of the Young Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) working group.
Diagnostics 2020, 10(8), 598; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10080598
Submission received: 20 July 2020 / Accepted: 13 August 2020 / Published: 16 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Developing Role of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine Applications in Pancreatic Tumors)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
We investigated the diagnostic performance of Somatostatin Receptor Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (SSR-PET/CT) for the detection of primary lesion and initial staging of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). A comprehensive literature search up to January 2020 was performed selecting studies in presence of: sample size ≥10 patients; index test (i.e., 68Ga-DOTATOC or 68Ga-DOTANOC or 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT); and outcomes (i.e., detection rate (DR), true positive, true negative, false positive, and false-negative). The methodological quality was evaluated with QUADAS-2. Pooled DR and pooled sensitivity and specificity for the identification of the primary tumor were assessed by a patient-based and a lesion-based analysis. Thirty-eight studies were selected for the qualitative analysis, while 18 papers were included in the meta-analysis. The number of pNET patients ranged from 10 to 142, for a total of 1143 subjects. At patient-based analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for the assessment of primary pNET were 79.6% (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 71–87%) and 95% (95%CI: 75–100%) with a heterogeneity of 59.6% and 51.5%, respectively. Pooled DR for the primary lesion was 81% (95%CI: 65–90%) and 92% (95%CI: 80–97%), respectively, at patient-based and lesion-based analysis. In conclusion, SSR-PET/CT has high DR and diagnostic performances for primary lesion and initial staging of pNETs.

1. Introduction

The incidence of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) is less or equal to one case per one hundred thousand people per-year, and they account for roughly 5% of all pancreatic cancers. However, in the last few decades, their incidence has risen [1,2].
Many biological features make these tumors clinically heterogeneous, including mutational status [3,4], hormone production, and histopathological grade. Among them, NETs grading, which is mainly related to Ki-67 expression and mitotic index, has several diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic implications. In well-differentiated pNETs (G1, G2, and well-differentiated G3) the slow cancer growth is related to good long-term survival even in the presence of liver metastases [5], while poorly differentiated G3 neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) show higher proliferation rates and lower overall survival [6]. Moreover, tumor grade is strictly related to the expression of somatostatin receptors (SSR1-5) on the neoplastic cellular surface [6,7]. In low-grade pNETs, the high SSR expression allows the therapeutic use of somatostatin analogs and makes these neoplasms ideal for targeted radionuclide imaging [8]. In contrast, the down-regulation of SSR makes high-grade NEC less suitable for these approaches.
Currently, three radio-labelled somatostatin analogs are used in the clinical practice for targeted SSR radionuclide imaging of pNETs: 68Ga-DOTATATE (DOTA, Tyr(3)-octreotate), 68Ga-DOTANOC (DOTA,1-Nal(3)-octreotide), and 68Ga-DOTATOC (DOTA, D-Phe1, Tyr (3)-octreotide). Although these positron-emitting radiotracers have a different affinity to the various types of SSR [9], they showed a similar diagnostic accuracy [10,11].
Targeted SSR molecular imaging with positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) plays a significant role in pNETs clinical management, particularly in the staging phase. Indeed, surgery is the only curative treatment approach, and an accurate assessment of both tumor detection and disease widespread is of utmost importance to avoid unsuccessful procedures. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigate the diagnostic performance of SSR-PET/CT for the detection of the primary lesion and initial staging of pNETs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search

Four researchers (G.S., A.B., A.M., and A.V.) performed a bibliographic analysis until 1 January 2020, by including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. The terms “pancreas”, “neuroendocrine”, “NET”, “Positron Emission Tomography”, “Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography”, “68Gallium”, “DOTA”, “somatostatin receptor”, “staging”, “diagnosis”, and “detection” were used for the bibliographic search, in each database. Additional filters, such as English language, original article and/or research article, and study including only humans, were used. Reviews, clinical reports, meeting abstracts, and editor comments were excluded. Four independent reviewers (A.G.N., V.F., P.G., and C.F.) evaluated the full texts of the selected papers. Furthermore, to improve the selection of the papers, the references of the studies included were assessed and included in the research strategy.
The systematic review was carried out using the standard methods [12], and graphically showed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines [13]. All studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were considered eligible for the systematic review and meta-analysis: (a) a sample size ≥10 patients; (b) 68Ga-DOTATOC, 68Ga-DOTANOC, or 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT as index tests; (c) detection rate (DR), true positive (TP), true negative (TN), false positive (FP), and false-negative (FN), which allowed us to construct 2 × 2 contingency tables. In case of studies from the same group of researchers, only the report with the highest number of enrolled patients was considered for the meta-analysis.

2.2. Quality Evaluation and Statistical Analysis

The overall quality of the studies was assessed by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) [14]. Meta-Analyst (version Beta 3.13) [15] and Comprehensive meta-analysis software were used to carry out the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was tested using the χ2 and the I2 tests. The heterogeneity was considered low, moderate, or high in case of a value equal to 25%, 59%, and 75%, respectively [12]. The meta-analysis was carried out with the random-effects model, in accordance with the recommendation of the Cochrane Oral Health Group. The pooled detection rate was calculated for the identification of the primary pNETs. Pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+ and LR−), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for the evaluation of primary pNET were also computed. Patient-based and lesion-based analyses were carried out. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

The literature search revealed 132 articles. Reviewing titles, abstracts, and full texts, we excluded 94 articles. Therefore, 38 studies were selected and included in the qualitative analysis, while 18 articles were considered for the meta-analysis (Figure 1).

3.2. Study Characteristics

The clinical and technical characteristics of included studies are detailed in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively, while the study quality assessment is reported in Figure 2. Selected articles were published by researchers from Europe, USA, and Asia. Twenty-two studies were retrospective and 16 studies were prospective. The number of enrolled pNET patients ranged from 10 to 142, and a total of 1143 pNET patients were included. The mean and median age of the patients ranged from 40 to 65 years. Among studies that analyzed tumor grading (n = 18), early grading (G1-G2) was more frequent than advanced (G3), despite deriving this data for pNET was not possible. SSR-PET/CT imaging was performed exclusively in the staging or preoperative setting in 18 studies. While most studies were conducted on pNET patients irrespectively to the tumor function, the study by Nockel et al. [16] was focused on patients affected by insulinoma. Similarly, a few studies were focused on hereditary pNETs, including Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) syndrome [17,18] and Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1 (MEN-1) [19,20,21].
PET/CT was employed without CT contrast media injection in all research papers except for the studies by Mayerhoefer et al. [32] and by Kazmierczak et al. [45], whereas no studies employed hybrid PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner.
All three SSR-targeted tracers were employed (68Ga-DOTATOC in 13, 68Ga-DOTANOC in seven, and 68Ga-DOTATATE in 14, respectively), while mixed tracers were used in two studies [38,40]. Only in the study by Poeppel et al. [10], two of these radiotracers (68Ga-DOTATOC and 68Ga-DATOTATE) were compared in terms of diagnostic accuracy, showing that maximal uptake of 68Ga-DOTATOC tended to be higher than its 68Ga-DOTATATE counterpart, thus encouraging the application of different SSR ligands in order to personalize imaging and therapy. Similarly, in one study [40], 68Ga-labeled SSR imaging was compared to 64Cu-labeled SSR-PET on a per-lesion and per-patient basis, showing promising results for 64Cu-labeled SSR, both for diagnostic and therapeutic implications.
The injected radiopharmaceutical activity was similar across all studies (Table 2). In contrast, considerable variability in the time interval between radiotracer injection and image acquisition was observed (ranging 20–162 min). However, in the paper by Nakamoto et al. [47], in which two acquisition time points (60 and 90 min post-injection) were tested, no relevant differences in terms of accuracy were reported in either the detection of primary lesion nor in the metastasis identification. Analysis of PET images was exclusively performed using visual analysis in 10 studies [21,23,24,25,28,32,39,42,44,49]. Additional semiquantitative criteria, mainly maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), were also used.

3.3. Qualitative Analysis

Most of the selected studies used conventional imaging as the reference standard to assess SSR-PET/CT accuracy in the detection of primary lesions [17,21,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,32,35,41,46,50]. Histopathology was used as a reference only by Cingarlini et al. [48] and Kaemmerer et al. [38]. In the former study, SSR-PET/CT showed high sensitivity (equal to 94.3%) in detecting the primary lesion of G1-2 pNETs [48]. In the latter [38], the authors used the histopathological reference combined with reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction gene-expression data to evaluate the correlation between Dotapeptides accumulation and SSR2A expression in both primary and metastatic pNET lesions. Reported data showed that SUVmax and SUVmean are reliable ex vivo parameters for in vivo quantification of SSR expression in pNET.
Considering the studies that evaluated semiquantitative parameters in pNETs [17,19,20,29,30,33,34,35,36,38,41,43,48,51], average lesion SUVmax was 25.4 (range 2–191). Of note, high heterogeneity in SUVmax between the primary lesion and distant metastases was observed. While some studies reported higher SUVmax values for the primary lesion [29,30], in some others [41] the opposite finding was observed. Moreover, a variable site-specific diagnostic accuracy was observed for metastatic lesions when SSR-PET/CT was compared with conventional imaging as the reference standard [22,23,27,28,29,30,32,41,44,46,50,51]. In most studies, SSR-PET/CT was superior to CT for the detection of lymph node, bone, liver, and other organ metastases, while CT overcame SSR-targeted imaging for the assessment of pulmonary metastases.
In a few studies, the diagnostic potential of SSR-PET/CT imaging was also measured in terms of impact on the therapeutic decisions [26,27,28,39,42,50]. Considering all patient cohorts of these studies (n = 1513), SSR-PET/CT influenced the therapeutic plan in 597 cases, resulting in a management change in approximately 39% of patients. However, only the study by Ilhan et al. [39] specifically addressed this point in a study cohort of pNET patients, in which imaging results altered the surgical management in 6/18 cases (33%), while the remaining studies contained mixed NET patients′ cohorts. In contrast, fewer studies explored the prognostic relevance of SSR-targeted imaging at staging in pNETs [20,52]. Majala et al. [52] showed that 68Ga-DOTANOC integrated with 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT can predict tumor grade and clinical outcome in non-functioning pNETs. The authors showed that not only FDG but also 68Ga-SSR imaging has prognostic value in the preoperative setting, being able to predict the histopathological grade.

3.4. Quantitative Results

As shown in Table 3, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of SSR-PET/CT for the assessment of primary pNET were 79.6% (95%CI: 70.5–87%) and 95% (75–100%) with a heterogeneity of 59.6% and 51.5%, respectively (both ps = ns). Moreover, the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) value was 35.579 (95%CI: 4.673–270.90), with a heterogeneity of 21%. Pooled detection rates for the primary tumors were 81% (95%CI: 65–90%) and 92% (95%CI: 80–97%), respectively, at patient-based and lesion-based analysis (Figure 3 and Figure 4). A slight asymmetry in the forest plots was found for each analysis; therefore, publication bias may be present in the lesion-based and patient-based analyses (see also the corresponding Funnel Plots in Figure S1A,B).

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis specifically addressing the identification of the primary lesion and initial staging by using SSR-PET/CT in patients with pNETs. Several studies have used SSR-PET/CT imaging to achieve this aim, reporting variable results. However, most of these studies have limited power due to the relatively small number of enrolled patients, and the lack of specific studies precisely focused on pNETs. To derive more robust estimates on the SSR-PET/CT diagnostic accuracy in this clinical setting, we have pooled the published studies.
Heterogeneity of selected studies may represent a limitation in a meta-analysis. Differences among patients’ selection criteria, diversity in methodological aspects, and variable study quality are the most common potential sources of bias. We detected only a moderate heterogeneity among the studies included in the pooled analysis. However, due to the relatively low number of selected studies for the quantitative analysis, subgroup analyses aiming to explain this heterogeneity was not performed. For the same reasons, subgroup analyses, including functioning or non-functioning pNETs as well as hereditary or sporadic pNETs, were not performed.
Obtained data confirm that SSR-PET/CT represents a robust diagnostic tool in pNETs showing a high pooled true positive rate both at patient-based and lesion-based analysis, due to the low number of the observed false-negative findings.
We observed high accuracy in the diagnosis of the primary lesion. However, when compared with similar meta-analyses conducted on mixed gastroenteropancreatic (GEP)-NET populations, a reduction in sensitivity was observed. Indeed, in the meta-analysis by Geijer and Breimer [53], which included 2105 GEP-NET patients, a pooled sensitivity of 93% (95%CI: 91–94%) was reported. Obviously, this difference may be related to the spatial resolution of PET/CT hampering the detection of smaller pancreatic lesions and the inclusion of higher histopathological grades pNETs, which might have increased the occurrence of some false-negative findings due to the lower SSR expression [8]. However, the inclusion of patients affected by insulinoma in many of analyzed studies might have also contributed. Indeed, compared to carcinoids (the commonest GEP-NET histopathological subtype), insulinomas have limited SSR expression, thus potentially reducing SSR-PET sensitivity [54]. On the other hand, pancreatic SSR expression might represent a potential source of false-positive results in the primary lesion detection by SSR-targeted molecular imaging (thus reducing specificity). Indeed, particularly the head and uncinate process, represent a site of physiological SSR overexpression [55,56,57]. Previous studies proposed a cutoff value of SUVmax for differentiating between physiologic and neoplastic pancreatic uptake [57], but there is some overlap of SUV reported in the literature for these two different conditions. This topic was assessed by three of the selected studies [31,34,37]. Overall, they showed that caution is suggested when dismissing foci of enhanced uptake seen on functional but not on anatomic imaging as false positive, especially in patients with repeat PET findings on follow-up period.
Of note, a wide heterogeneity in SUVmax values was observed between primary pancreatic lesions and distant metastases. This is coherent with the heterogeneity in SSR-2A expression between the primary site and distant metastases, since metastatic lesions, being comparatively new as compared to the primary, may be subject to less intense down-regulation of SSR [58]. This difference may theoretically impact the SSR-PET/CT diagnostic accuracy, introducing in a site-specific detection rate heterogeneity. However, contradictory findings were reported in the analyzed studies. The use of different SSR tracers, the variable sample size, the inclusion of a mixed patient population of pNET and GEP-NET, and the variability of histopathological tumor subtypes are possible reasons behind this contradictory finding. The combined use of FDG and SSR-PET/CT imaging may at least partially solve this clinical issue [59].
When compared with conventional imaging, SSR-PET/CT offered a relevant advantage in the detection rate of most metastatic sites. These additional findings have prompted therapeutic interventions in some patients, as shown by Ilhan et al. [39]. They also have a prognostic implication because unknown distant bone metastases are considered as a negative prognostic factor, possibly requiring a more aggressive treatment regime [60]. Therefore, this method is now the choice to fully stage and localize the extent of disease in patients with non-insulinoma pNETs in the preoperative setting by the current guidelines of the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) [61].
Only in a few cases, the SSR-PET/CT approach was integrated with contrast-enhanced (ce) CT [32,45]. In the study by Kazmierczak et al. [45], this combination resulted in an improvement in sensitivity of 50% and an improvement in accuracy of 30% in primary tumor detection. However, Mayerhoefer et al. [32] showed that sensitivity improvement is only moderate while hardly affecting specificity, concluding that unenhanced images may be enough for routine PET/CT in NET patients. Moreover, none of these studies was conducted exclusively in pNET patients. Similarly, combining PET with MRI may take the theoretical advantage of the combination of high soft-tissue contrast for MRI with metabolic data from PET, helping to recognize small lesions. Moreover, MRI is a tool-free of ionizing radiation. However, only a few studies demonstrated a positive impact of PET/MRI in studying NETs [62,63,64,65], and evidence specifically addressing pNETs is still anecdotal [66,67]. Further studies are needed to understand better the potential role of this tool in this field.

5. Conclusions

SSR-PET/CT has a high detection rate and diagnostic performances for primary lesion and initial staging of pNETs. Further studies are needed to validate the integration of SSR-PET with contrast-enhanced CT or MRI in this clinical setting.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/10/8/598/s1, Figure S1A,B Funnel Plots for publication biases at the lesion-based and patient-based analyses.

Author Contributions

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work: R.L., M.B., D.A. and L.E.; Literature search: G.S., A.B., A.M. and A.V.; Article selection: A.G.N., V.F., P.G. and C.F.; QUADAS analysis: S.A. and R.L.; Meta-analysis: R.L. and L.E.; Manuscript preparation: M.B., D.A., L.E., S.A., R.L. and P.A.; Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content: all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yao, J.C.; Hassan, M.; Phan, A.; Dagohoy, C.; Leary, C.; Mares, J.E.; Abdalla, E.K.; Fleming, J.B.; Vauthey, J.N.; Rashid, A.; et al. One hundred years after “carcinoid”: Epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 3063–3072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Fraenkel, M.; Kim, M.K.; Faggiano, A.; Valk, G.D. Epidemiology of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2012, 26, 691–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Klöppel, G. Classification and pathology of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2011, 18, S1–S16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Jensen, R.T.; Berna, M.J.; Bingham, D.B.; Norton, J.A. Inherited pancreatic endocrine tumor syndromes: Advances in molecular pathogenesis, diagnosis, management, and controversies. Cancer 2008, 113, 1807–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Dromain, C.; Déandréis, D.; Scoazec, J.Y.; Goere, D.; Ducreux, M.; Baudin, E.; Tselikas, L. Imaging of neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas. Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2016, 97, 1241–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Papotti, M.; Bongiovanni, M.; Volante, M.; Allìa, E.; Landolfi, S.; Helboe, L.; Schindler, M.; Cole, S.L.; Bussolati, G. 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, 461–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Reubi, J.C.; Waser, B. Concomitant expression of several peptide receptors in neuroendocrine tumours: Molecular basis for in vivo multireceptor tumour targeting. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2003, 30, 781–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Modlin, I.M.; Oberg, K.; Chung, D.C.; Jensen, R.T.; de Herder, W.W.; Thakker, R.V.; Caplin, M.; Delle Fave, G.; Kaltsas, G.A.; Krenning, E.P.; et al. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Lancet Oncol. 2008, 9, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Öksüz, M.Ö.; Winter, L.; Pfannenberg, C.; Reischl, G.; Müssig, K.; Bares, R.; Dittmann, H. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy of neuroendocrine tumors with (90)Y-DOTATOC: Is treatment response predictable by pre-therapeutic uptake of (68)Ga-DOTATOC? Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2014, 95, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Poeppel, T.D.; Binse, I.; Petersenn, S.; Lahner, H.; Schott, M.; Antoch, G.; Brandau, W.; Bockisch, A.; Boy, C. 68Ga-DOTATOC versus 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in functional imaging of neuroendocrine tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 2011, 52, 1864–1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Wild, D.; Bomanji, J.B.; Benkert, P.; Maecke, H.; Ell, P.J.; Reubi, J.C.; Caplin, M.E. Comparison of 68Ga-DOTANOC and 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT within patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 2013, 54, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2009, 3, e123–e130. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. Whiting, P.F.; Rutjes, A.W.; Westwood, M.E.; Mallett, S.; Deeks, J.J.; Reitsma, J.B.; Leeflang, M.M.; Sterne, J.A.; Bossuyt, P.M.; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011, 155, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wallace, B.C.; Schmid, C.H.; Lau, J.; Trikalinos, T.A. Meta-Analyst: Software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2009, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Nockel, P.; Babic, B.; Millo, C.; Herscovitch, P.; Patel, D.; Nilubol, N.; Sadowski, S.M.; Cochran, C.; Gorden, P.; Kebebew, E. Localization of Insulinoma Using 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT Scan. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2017, 102, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Farchione, A.; Rufini, V.; Brizi, M.G.; Iacovazzo, D.; Larghi, A.; Massara, R.M.; Petrone, G.; Poscia, A.; Treglia, G.; De Marinis, L.; et al. Evaluation of the Added Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging to Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors and Comparison with 68Ga-DOTANOC Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography. Pancreas 2016, 45, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shell, J.; Tirosh, A.; Millo, C.; Sadowski, S.M.; Assadipour, Y.; Green, P.; Patel, D.; Nilubol, N.; Kebebew, E. The utility of 68Gallium-DOTATATE PET/CT in the detection of von Hippel-Lindau disease associated tumors. Eur. J. Radiol. 2019, 112, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sadowski, S.M.; Millo, C.; Cottle-Delisle, C.; Merkel, R.; Yang, L.A.; Herscovitch, P.; Pacak, K.; Simonds, W.F.; Marx, S.J.; Kebebew, E. Results of (68)Gallium-DOTATATE PET/CT Scanning in Patients with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2015, 221, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lastoria, S.; Marciello, F.; Faggiano, A.; Aloj, L.; Caracò, C.; Aurilio, M.; D’Ambrosio, L.; Di Gennaro, F.; Ramundo, V.; Camera, L.; et al. Role of (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). Endocrine 2016, 52, 488–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Morgat, C.; Vélayoudom-Céphise, F.L.; Schwartz, P.; Guyot, M.; Gaye, D.; Vimont, D.; Schulz, J.; Mazère, J.; Nunes, M.L.; Smith, D.; et al. Evaluation of (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET/CT for the detection of duodenopancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in patients with MEN1. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2016, 43, 1258–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Gabriel, M.; Oberauer, A.; Dobrozemsky, G.; Decristoforo, C.; Putzer, D.; Kendler, D.; Uprimny, C.; Kovacs, P.; Bale, R.; Virgolini, I.J. 68Ga-DOTA-Tyr3-octreotide PET in neuroendocrine tumors: Comparison with somatostatin receptor scintigraphy and CT. J. Nucl. Med. 2007, 48, 508–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Putzer, D.; Gabriel, M.; Henninger, B.; Kendler, D.; Uprimny, C.; Dobrozemsky, G.; Decristoforo, C.; Bale, R.J.; Jaschke, W.; Virgolini, I.J. Bone metastases in patients with neuroendocrine tumor: 68Ga-DOTA-Tyr3-octreotide PET in comparison to CT and bone scintigraphy. J. Nucl. Med. 2009, 50, 1214–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Versari, A.; Camellini, L.; Carlinfante, G.; Frasoldati, A.; Nicoli, F.; Grassi, E.; Gallo, C.; Giunta, F.P.; Fraternali, A.; Salvo, D.; et al. Ga-68 DOTATOC PET, endoscopic ultrasonography, and multidetector CT in the diagnosis of duodenopancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A single-centre retrospective study. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2010, 35, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Srirajaskanthan, R.; Kayani, I.; Quigley, A.M.; Soh, J.; Caplin, M.E.; Bomanji, J. The role of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET in patients with neuroendocrine tumors and negative or equivocal findings on 111In-DTPA-octreotide scintigraphy. J. Nucl. Med. 2010, 51, 875–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Frilling, A.; Sotiropoulos, G.C.; Radtke, A.; Malago, M.; Bockisch, A.; Kuehl, H.; Li, J.; Broelsch, C.E. The impact of 68Ga-DOTATOC positron emission tomography/computed tomography on the multimodal management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors. Ann. Surg. 2010, 252, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Prasad, V.; Ambrosini, V.; Hommann, M.; Hoersch, D.; Fanti, S.; Baum, R.P. Detection of unknown primary neuroendocrine tumours (CUP-NET) using (68)Ga-DOTA-NOC receptor PET/CT. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2010, 37, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ruf, J.; Heuck, F.; Schiefer, J.; Denecke, T.; Elgeti, F.; Pascher, A.; Pavel, M.; Stelter, L.; Kropf, S.; Wiedenmann, B.; et al. Impact of Multiphase 68Ga-DOTATOC-PET/CT on therapy management in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. Neuroendocrinology 2010, 91, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kumar, R.; Sharma, P.; Garg, P.; Karunanithi, S.; Naswa, N.; Sharma, R.; Thulkar, S.; Lata, S.; Malhotra, A. Role of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET-CT in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Eur. Radiol. 2011, 21, 2408–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Naswa, N.; Sharma, P.; Kumar, A.; Nazar, A.H.; Kumar, R.; Chumber, S.; Bal, C. Gallium-68-DOTA-NOC PET/CT of patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A prospective single-center study. AJR. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011, 197, 1221–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Krausz, Y.; Rubinstein, R.; Appelbaum, L.; Mishani, E.; Orevi, M.; Fraenkel, M.; Tshori, S.; Glaser, B.; Bocher, M.; Salmon, A.; et al. Ga-68 DOTA-NOC uptake in the pancreas: Pathological and physiological patterns. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2012, 37, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mayerhoefer, M.E.; Schuetz, M.; Magnaldi, S.; Weber, M.; Trattnig, S.; Karanikas, G. Are contrast media required for (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumours of the abdomen? Eur. Radiol. 2012, 22, 938–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ambrosini, V.; Campana, D.; Nanni, C.; Cambioli, S.; Tomassetti, P.; Rubello, D.; Fanti, S. Is 68Ga-DOTA-NOC PET/CT indicated in patients with clinical, biochemical or radiological suspicion of neuroendocrine tumour? Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2012, 39, 1278–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kroiss, A.; Putzer, D.; Decristoforo, C.; Uprimny, C.; Warwitz, B.; Nilica, B.; Gabriel, M.; Kendler, D.; Waitz, D.; Widmann, G.; et al. 68Ga-DOTA-TOC uptake in neuroendocrine tumour and healthy tissue: Differentiation of physiological uptake and pathological processes in PET/CT. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2013, 40, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Schmid-Tannwald, C.; Schmid-Tannwald, C.M.; Morelli, J.N.; Neumann, R.; Haug, A.R.; Jansen, N.; Nikolaou, K.; Schramm, N.; Reiser, M.F.; Rist, C. Comparison of abdominal MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in detection of neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2013, 40, 897–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kunikowska, J.; Pawlak, D.; Kolasa, A.; Mikołajczak, R.; Królicki, L. A frequency and semiquantitative analysis of pathological 68Ga DOTATATE PET/CT uptake by primary site-dependent neuroendocrine tumor metastasis. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2014, 39, 855–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mapelli, P.; Tam, H.H.; Sharma, R.; Aboagye, E.O.; Al-Nahhas, A. Frequency and significance of physiological versus pathological uptake of 68Ga-DOTATATE in the pancreas: Validation with morphological imaging. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2014, 35, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kaemmerer, D.; Wirtz, R.M.; Fischer, E.K.; Hommann, M.; Sänger, J.; Prasad, V.; Specht, E.; Baum, R.P.; Schulz, S.; Lupp, A. Analysis of somatostatin receptor 2A immunohistochemistry, RT-qPCR, and in vivo PET/CT data in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm. Pancreas 2015, 44, 648–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ilhan, H.; Fendler, W.P.; Cyran, C.C.; Spitzweg, C.; Auernhammer, C.J.; Gildehaus, F.J.; Bartenstein, P.; Angele, M.K.; Haug, A.R. Impact of (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT on the surgical management of primary neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas or ileum. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Malmberg, C.; Ripa, R.S.; Johnbeck, C.B.; Knigge, U.; Langer, S.W.; Mortensen, J.; Oturai, P.; Loft, A.; Hag, A.M.; Kjær, A. 64Cu-DOTATATE for Noninvasive Assessment of Atherosclerosis in Large Arteries and Its Correlation with Risk Factors: Head-to-Head Comparison with 68Ga-DOTATOC in 60 Patients. J. Nucl. Med. 2015, 56, 1895–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Sharma, P.; Arora, S.; Dhull, V.S.; Naswa, N.; Kumar, R.; Ammini, A.C.; Bal, C. Evaluation of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT imaging in a large exclusive population of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Abdom. Imaging 2015, 40, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Skoura, E.; Michopoulou, S.; Mohmaduvesh, M.; Panagiotidis, E.; Al Harbi, M.; Toumpanakis, C.; Almukhailed, O.; Kayani, I.; Syed, R.; Navalkissoor, S.; et al. The Impact of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT Imaging on Management of Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors: Experience from a National Referral Center in the United Kingdom. J. Nucl. Med. 2016, 57, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Prasad, V.; Tiling, N.; Denecke, T.; Brenner, W.; Plöckinger, U. Potential role of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT in screening for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2016, 43, 2014–2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Deppen, S.A.; Liu, E.; Blume, J.D.; Clanton, J.; Shi, C.; Jones-Jackson, L.B.; Lakhani, V.; Baum, R.P.; Berlin, J.; Smith, G.T.; et al. Safety and Efficacy of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT for Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment Management of Neuroendocrine Tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 2016, 57, 708–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Kazmierczak, P.M.; Rominger, A.; Wenter, V.; Spitzweg, C.; Auernhammer, C.; Angele, M.K.; Rist, C.; Cyran, C.C. The added value of 68Ga-DOTA-TATE-PET to contrast-enhanced CT for primary site detection in CUP of neuroendocrine origin. Eur. Radiol. 2017, 27, 1676–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sadowski, S.M.; Neychev, V.; Millo, C.; Shih, J.; Nilubol, N.; Herscovitch, P.; Pacak, K.; Marx, S.J.; Kebebew, E. Prospective Study of 68Ga-DOTATATE Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Detecting Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors and Unknown Primary Sites. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 588–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Nakamoto, Y.; Ishimori, T.; Sano, K.; Temma, T.; Ueda, M.; Saji, H.; Togashi, K. Clinical efficacy of dual-phase scanning using (68)Ga-DOTATOC-PET/CT in the detection of neuroendocrine tumours. Clin. Radiol. 2016, 71, e1–e1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cingarlini, S.; Ortolani, S.; Salgarello, M.; Butturini, G.; Malpaga, A.; Malfatti, V.; DʼOnofrio, M.; Davì, M.V.; Vallerio, P.; Ruzzenente, A.; et al. Role of Combined 68Ga-DOTATOC and 18F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Diagnostic Workup of Pancreas Neuroendocrine Tumors: Implications for Managing Surgical Decisions. Pancreas 2017, 46, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bertani, E.; Fazio, N.; Radice, D.; Zardini, C.; Spinoglio, G.; Chiappa, A.; Ribero, D.; Biffi, R.; Partelli, S.; Falconi, M. Assessing the role of primary tumour resection in patients with synchronous unresectable liver metastases from pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour of the body and tail. A propensity score survival evaluation. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017, 43, 372–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, S.H.; Chang, Y.C.; Hwang, T.L.; Chen, J.S.; Chou, W.C.; Hsieh, C.H.; Yeh, T.S.; Hsu, J.T.; Yeh, C.N.; Tseng, J.H.; et al. 68Ga-DOTATOC and 18F-FDG PET/CT for identifying the primary lesions of suspected and metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: A prospective study in Taiwan. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2018, 117, 480–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Komek, H.; Ansal Balci, T.; Can, C. Efficacy of Galium-68 DOTATATE PET/CT in the Detection of Metastasis Rate of Well-Differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. Asia Ocean. J. Nucl. Med. Biol. 2019, 7, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Majala, S.; Seppänen, H.; Kemppainen, J.; Sundström, J.; Schalin-Jäntti, C.; Gullichsen, R.; Schildt, J.; Mustonen, H.; Vesterinen, T.; Arola, J.; et al. Prediction of the aggressiveness of non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors based on the dual-tracer PET/CT. EJNMMI Res. 2019, 9, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Geijer, H.; Breimer, L.H. Somatostatin receptor PET/CT in neuroendocrine tumours: Update on systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2013, 40, 1770–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zimmer, T.; Stölzel, U.; Bäder, M.; Koppenhagen, K.; Hamm, B.; Buhr, H.; Riecken, E.O.; Wiedenmann, B. Endoscopic ultrasonography and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy in the preoperative localisation of insulinomas and gastrinomas. Gut 1996, 39, 562–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ambrosini, V.; Tomassetti, P.; Castellucci, P.; Campana, D.; Montini, G.; Rubello, D.; Nanni, C.; Rizzello, A.; Franchi, R.; Fanti, S. Comparison between 68Ga-DOTA-NOC and 18F-DOPA PET for the detection of gastro-entero-pancreatic and lung neuro-endocrine tumours. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2008, 35, 1431–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Prasad, V.; Baum, R.P. Biodistribution of the Ga-68 labeled somatostatin analogue DOTA-NOC in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: Characterization of uptake in normal organs and tumor lesions. Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2010, 54, 61–67. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ambrosini, V.; Campana, D.; Bodei, L.; Nanni, C.; Castellucci, P.; Allegri, V.; Montini, G.C.; Tomassetti, P.; Paganelli, G.; Fanti, S. 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT clinical impact in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 2010, 51, 669–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Hofland, L.J.; Lamberts, S.W. The pathophysiological consequences of somatostatin receptor internalization and resistance. Endocr. Rev. 2003, 24, 28–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Muffatti, F.; Partelli, S.; Cirocchi, R.; Andreasi, V.; Mapelli, P.; Picchio, M.; Gianolli, L.; Falconi, M. Combined 68Ga-DOTA-peptides and 18F-FDG PET in the diagnostic work-up of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN). Clin. Transl. Imaging 2019, 7, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Panzuto, F.; Nasoni, S.; Falconi, M.; Corleto, V.D.; Capurso, G.; Cassetta, S.; Di Fonzo, M.; Tornatore, V.; Milione, M.; Angeletti, S.; et al. Prognostic factors and survival in endocrine tumor patients: Comparison between gastrointestinal and pancreatic localization. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2005, 12, 1083–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Falconi, M.; Eriksson, B.; Kaltsas, G.; Bartsch, D.K.; Capdevila, J.; Caplin, M.; Kos-Kudla, B.; Kwekkeboom, D.; Rindi, G.; Klöppel, G.; et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines Update for the Management of Patients with Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors and Non-Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. Neuroendocrinology 2016, 103, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Hope, T.A.; Pampaloni, M.H.; Nakakura, E.; VanBrocklin, H.; Slater, J.; Jivan, S.; Aparici, C.M.; Yee, J.; Bergsland, E. Simultaneous (68)Ga-DOTA-TOC PET/MRI with gadoxetate disodium in patients with neuroendocrine tumor. Abdom. Imaging 2015, 40, 1432–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Seith, F.; Schraml, C.; Reischl, G.; Nikolaou, K.; Pfannenberg, C.; la Fougère, C.; Schwenzer, N. Fast non-enhanced abdominal examination protocols in PET/MRI for patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET): Comparison to multiphase contrast-enhanced PET/CT. Radiol. Med. 2018, 123, 860–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Sawicki, L.M.; Deuschl, C.; Beiderwellen, K.; Ruhlmann, V.; Poeppel, T.D.; Heusch, P.; Lahner, H.; Führer, D.; Bockisch, A.; Herrmann, K.; et al. Evaluation of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI for whole-body staging of neuroendocrine tumours in comparison with 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT. Eur. Radiol. 2017, 27, 4091–4099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mapelli, P.; Ironi, G.; Fallanca, F.; Partelli, S.; Muffatti, F.; Andreasi, V.; Gianolli, L.; Falconi, M.; De Cobelli, F.; Picchio, M. 68Ga-DOTA-peptides PET/MRI in pancreatico-duodenal neuroendocrine tumours: A flash pictorial essay on assets and lacks. Clin. Transl. Imaging 2019, 7, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Berzaczy, D.; Giraudo, C.; Haug, A.R.; Raderer, M.; Senn, D.; Karanikas, G.; Weber, M.; Mayerhoefer, M.E. Whole-Body 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/MRI Versus 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Prospective Study in 28 Patients. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2017, 42, 669–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Adams, L.C.; Bressem, K.K.; Brangsch, J.; Reimann, C.; Nowak, K.; Brenner, W.; Makowski, M.R. Quantitative 3D assessment of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to assess imaging markers for gastroendopancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: Preliminary results. J. Nucl. Med. 2020, 61, 1021–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 10 00598 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow-chart. Selection process of studies included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis according to the PRISMA flow diagram [13].
Figure 1. PRISMA flow-chart. Selection process of studies included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis according to the PRISMA flow diagram [13].
Diagnostics 10 00598 g001
Diagnostics 10 00598 g002 550
Figure 2. Study quality assessment. Overall quality assessment of the studies included in the systematic review according to QUADAS-2 tool [14].
Figure 2. Study quality assessment. Overall quality assessment of the studies included in the systematic review according to QUADAS-2 tool [14].
Diagnostics 10 00598 g002
Diagnostics 10 00598 g003 550
Figure 3. Detection rate at a per-lesion analysis. Plots of individual studies and pooled detection rate of SSR-PET/CT in patients with pNET on a per-lesion-based analysis, including 95%CI.
Figure 3. Detection rate at a per-lesion analysis. Plots of individual studies and pooled detection rate of SSR-PET/CT in patients with pNET on a per-lesion-based analysis, including 95%CI.
Diagnostics 10 00598 g003
Diagnostics 10 00598 g004 550
Figure 4. Detection rate at a per-patient analysis. Plots of individual studies and pooled detection rate of SSR-PET/CT in patients with pNET on a per-patient-based analysis, including 95%CI.
Figure 4. Detection rate at a per-patient analysis. Plots of individual studies and pooled detection rate of SSR-PET/CT in patients with pNET on a per-patient-based analysis, including 95%CI.
Diagnostics 10 00598 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Study CharacteristicsPatients Characteristics
ReferenceYear JournalCountryStudy DesignSettingN Pancreas/N PatientsMean Age (Range)GradingType of Treatment (n)Detection of Suspected pNET-Diagnosis
n		Staging
n
[22]2007J Nucl MedAustriaprospectivediagnosis, staging, restaging18/8458 (28–79)nr6 surgery
7 surgery + chemotherapy
16 surgery + long-acting somatostatin analogs		1336
[23]2009J Nucl MedAustriaretrospectivestaging and restaging11/51Nr (32–87)nrnr011
[24]2010Clin Nucl MedItalyretrospectivediagnosis11/1956 (21–80)9 WDET
4 WDEC		none110
[25]2010J Nucl MedUKretrospectivestaging, restaging13/5155.528 G1
19 G2
4 G3		9 surgery
10 Chemotherapy
27 long-acting somatostatin analogs
5 none		013
[26]2010Ann SurgGermanyprospectivediagnosis, staging27/5252 (24–76)51 G1-G2
1 G3		none126
[27]2010EJNMMIGermany-Italyretrospectivediagnosis16/596516 G1
2 G2
4 G3
13 nr		none160
[28]2010Neuro endocrinologyGermanyretrospectivediagnosis, staging, restaging18/6656 (29–79)nr33 surgery
5 surgery + chemotherapy
4 surgery + long-acting somatostatin analogs
2 long-acting somatostatin analogs
2 long-acting somatostatin analogs + chemotherapy
2 surgery + long-acting somatostatin analogs + chemotherapy
1 chemotherapy
17 none		nrnr
[29]2011Eur RadiolIndiaretrospectivediagnosis and staging20/2042.5* nrnone173
[30]2011AJRIndiaprospectivestaging, restaging26/10950* (21–76)nr60 none
30 surgery
11 surgery + long-acting somatostatin analogs
5 long-acting somatostatin analogs
2 surgery + chemotherapy or radiotherapy
1 long-acting somatostatin analogs + chemotherapy		026
[31]2012Clin Nucl MedIsraelretrospectivediagnosis, treatment response evaluation, detection of SSTR expression40/9659 (16–89)nrNr040
[32]2012Eur RadiolAustriaretrospectivediagnosis, staging, restaging19/5562 (37–80)34 G1
10 G2
4 G3		nr190
[33]2012EJNMMIItalyretrospectivestaging, restaging10/131nrnrnr100
[34]2013EJNMMIAustriaretrospectivestaging and restaging22/24959.5 (15–90)nrnrnrnr
[35]2013EJNMMIGermanyretrospectivediagnosis18/1856 (26–80)nr6 surgery
other nr		180
[10]2013Recent Results Cancer ResGermanyprospectivebefore PRRT9/2762 (46–81) 7 surgery
7 surgery + chemotherapy + PRRT
5 surgery + long-acting somatostatin analogs
2 none
6 other		90
[36]2014Clin Nucl MedPolandretrospectivestaging or restaging after surgery56/24556 (18–78)G1: 103
G2: 142		35 surgery
12 PRRT
6 chemotherapy
16 long-acting somatostatin analogs		056
[37]2014Nucl Med CommUnited Kingdomretrospectivediagnosis, restaging after surgery, treatment response evaluation, detection of SSTR expression38/13856 (20–84)nrnr038
[38]2015PancreasGermanyretrospectivestaging19/1958 (33–72)G1: 3
G2: 15
G3: 1		Pre-operative019
[19]2015J Am Coll SurgUSAprospectivestaging, restaging26/2642 (19–82)nr10 surgery
16 none		1214
[39]2015Ann Surg OncolGermanyprospectivestaging18/4456* (32–77)nr (but all G1-G2)Pre surgery018
[40]2015J Nucl MedDenmarkprospectivestaging, restaging11/5961 (32–81)G1: 12
G2: 40
7 nr		32 surgery **
32 long-acting ** somatostatin analogs
27 interferon **
19 PRRT **
16 chemotherapy **		011
[41]2015Abdom ImagingIndiaretrospectivestaging, restaging141/14146 (6–81)nrnr880
[42]2015J Nucl MedUKretrospectiveall142/72854 (15–86)260 G1
89 G2
63 G3		nrnrnr
[43]2016EJNMMIGermanyprospectivediagnosis20/2045 (22–64)nrnr200
[20]2016EndocrineItalyprospectivediagnosis11/1840 (16–61)nrnr110
[17]2016PancreasItalyretrospectivestaging, treatment response evaluation25/2558 (27–84)G1: 7
G2: 7
G3: 2
nr: 9		16 naive
6 SST analogs
1 PRRT1 PRRT + Chemotherapy
1 PRRT+SST analogs		025
[21]2016EJNMMIFranceprospective diagnosis and restaging19/1947 (26–70)nrsurgery415
[44]2016J Nucl MedUSAprospectivediagnosis, staging, treatment response22/97 (gastro-entero-pancreatic)5424 G1
37 G2
6 G3
30 nr		51 long-acting somatostatin analogs
other nr		022
[45]2016Eur RadiolGermanyretrospectivediagnosis, staging12/3863 (34–76)16 G1
8 G2 		none120
[46]2016JCOUSAprospectivediagnosis31/13151 (19–82)nrnone310
[47]2016Clin RadiolJapanretrospectivediagnosis, staging, restaging19/5455 (27–81)nrnr820
[16]2017J Clin Endocrinol MetabSwitzerlandretrospectivediagnosis10/3157.5* (21.75)G1: 8
G2: 1		surgery100
[48]2017PancreasItalyretrospectivediagnosis35/3559 (41–84)G1: 10
G2: 25		surgery350
[49]2017EJSOItalyprospectivediagnosis, prognostication124/124556 G1
69 G2
5 G3		63 surgery
61 none		0124
[50]2018J Formos Med AssocTaiwanprospectivediagnosis10/1756 (24–84)G1: 6
G2: 7
G3: 1
3 nr		None100
[51]2019AOJNMBTurkeyretrospectivestaging
metastases detection		19/3850* (27–80)18 G1
20 G2		nr019
[18]2019Eur J RadiolUSAprospectivediagnosis36/3646nrnr360
[52]2019EJNMMI ResearchFinlandprospectivediagnosis, prognostication31/3160 (20–83)13 G1
8 G2
1 G3		nr031
* median; ** possible combination of different therapies not explained in the paper; PRRT: peptide receptor radiation therapy; SSTR: somatostatin receptors; WDET, well-differentiated endocrine tumor; WDEC, well-differentiated endocrine cancer; PD poorly differentiated; nr: not reported.
Table
Table 2. Technical features of included studies.
Table 2. Technical features of included studies.
ReferenceDeviceRadiotracer (Peptide)Activity Injected MBq Mean (Range) Uptake Time Min
Mean (Range)		PET Analysis Semiquantitative ParametersSUVmax Mean (Range)
[22]PETDOTATOC15020, 60, 100visual and semiquantitativeSUVmaxnr
[23]PET/CTDOTATOC15060–90visual//
[24]PET/CTDOTATOC1.5–2 MBq/Kg60visual//
[25]PET/CTDOTATATE120–20060visual//
[26]PET/CTDOTATOC120–25060visual and semiquantitativeSUVmaxnr
[27]PET/CTDOTANOC100 (46–260)60visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax18.6 (7.8–34.8)
[28]PET & PET/CTDOTATOC100–12060visual//
[29]PET/CTDOTATOC132–22230–45visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax12.6 (8.8–27.6)
only in pancreas
[30]PET/CTDOTANOC132–22245–60visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax13 * (1–125)
[31]PET/CTDOTANOC132 (77–196)73 (50–120)visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax26 (5.5–165)
[32]PET/CTDOTATOC15090visual//
[33]PET/CTDOTANOC120–18560visual//
[34]PET/CTDOTATOC119 (68–220)87 (51–148)visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax34.6
only in pancreas
[35]PET/CTDOTATATE20060visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax36.5
[10]PET and PET/CTDOTATOC and
DOTATATE		88 (52–111)
102 (60–123)		68 (29–162)
56 (24–161)		visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax37.4
19.6
[36]PET/CTDOTATATE156 (120–200)60–70visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax24.9
only in pancreas
[37]PET/CTDOTATATE117 (51–212)24–44visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax32 (10–151)
[38]PET/CTDOTATOC or
DOTANOC or
DOTATATE		122 (86–149)60visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax; SUVmean22.5 (5.7–100.4)
[19]PET/CTDOTATATE18560visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax72.8 (19,2–191)
[39]PET/CTDOTATATE20060visual//
[40]PET/CTDOTATOC
and
DOTATATE°		150
200		45
60		visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax; TBR44.5
61.2
[41]PET/CTDOTANOC132–22245–60visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax14.7 (5–32.5)
only in pancreas
[42]PET/CTDOTATATE25045–60visual//
[43]PET/CTDOTATOC1.7 MBq/Kg45–60visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax18.9 (5–65.6)
[20]PET/CTDOTATATE120–22045–60visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax28 (3.9–85.8)
only in pancreas
[17]PET/CTDOTANOC2.5 MBq/Kg60visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax14.6 (4.2–82.9)
[21]PET/CTDOTATOC97 (74–124)60visual//
[44]PET/CTDOTATATE19655–93visual//
[45]PET/CTDOTATATE206 (127–302)60visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax; tumor to spleen ratio26.5 (5.7–77.9)
[46]PET/CTDOTATATE18560visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax65.4 (6.9–244)
[47]PET/CTDOTATOC11–18564 (55–75)visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax; tumor to pancreas ratio31.7
[16]PET/CTDOTATATE18560visual and semiquantitativeSUVmaxnr
[48]PET/CTDOTATOC1.5 MBq/Kg60visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax45.6 (2–178)
[49]PET/CTDOTANOCnrnrvisual//
[50]PET/CTDOTATOC74–18560visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax; SUVmean, MTV; TLG53.8 (23,8–96) G1
11.5 (4.1–61.8) G2–3
[51]PET/CTDOTATATE2 MBq/Kg60visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax18.5
Only in pancreas
[18]PET/CTDOTATATE18560visual and semiquantitativeSUVmaxnr
[52]PET/CTDOTANOC14364visual and semiquantitativeSUVmax(8.7–104.7)
MTV: metabolic tumor volume; nr: not reported; TBR: tumor to background ratio; TFTV: total functional tumor volume; TLG: total lesion glycolysis; ° radio-labelled with 64Cu; * median.
Table
Table 3. Results from the meta-analysis.
Table 3. Results from the meta-analysis.
Sensitivity (95%CI)Pooled Specificity (95%CI)LR+ (95%CI)LR– (95%CI)DOR (95%CI)
PooledI2 (%)X2 (p)PooledI2 (%)X2 (p)PooledI2 (%)X2 (p)PooledI2 (%)X2 (p)PooledI2 (%)X2 (p)
Patients-based analysis79.6%
(71–87)		59.6%4.95 (0.08)95%
(75–100)		51.5%4.12 (0.13)5.76
(1.4–24.3)		21%2.53
(0.28)		0.201 (0.06–0.70)64%5.56 (0.06)35.6
(4.67–270.9)		21%2.52 (0.28)
LR+: positive likelihood ratio; LR–: negative likelihood ratio; DOR: diagnostic odd ratio; I2: heterogeneity.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bauckneht, M.; Albano, D.; Annunziata, S.; Santo, G.; Guglielmo, P.; Frantellizzi, V.; Branca, A.; Ferrari, C.; Vento, A.; Mirabile, A.; et al. Somatostatin Receptor PET/CT Imaging for the Detection and Staging of Pancreatic NET: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 598. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10080598

AMA Style

Bauckneht M, Albano D, Annunziata S, Santo G, Guglielmo P, Frantellizzi V, Branca A, Ferrari C, Vento A, Mirabile A, et al. Somatostatin Receptor PET/CT Imaging for the Detection and Staging of Pancreatic NET: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics. 2020; 10(8):598. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10080598

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bauckneht, Matteo, Domenico Albano, Salvatore Annunziata, Giulia Santo, Priscilla Guglielmo, Viviana Frantellizzi, Alessia Branca, Cristina Ferrari, Antonio Vento, Alessia Mirabile, and et al. 2020. "Somatostatin Receptor PET/CT Imaging for the Detection and Staging of Pancreatic NET: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Diagnostics 10, no. 8: 598. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10080598

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop