The predictive impact of dual somatostatin receptor/fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs): review of literature and a single institution experience.
Predictive
dual positron emission tomography (dual PET)
neuroendocrine tumors
Journal
Journal of gastrointestinal oncology
ISSN: 2078-6891
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointest Oncol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101557751
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Apr 2023
29 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
13
10
2022
accepted:
20
02
2023
medline:
18
5
2023
pubmed:
18
5
2023
entrez:
18
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Treatment with radiolabelled somatostatin analogs, a form of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), has changed the management of patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). There is a subgroup of patients who have suboptimal benefit and rapidly progress on PRRT, indicating that accurate prognostic and predictive markers are urgently needed. Currently, most of the literature concentrate on the prognostic impact of the dual positron emission tomography (PET) scan with very few information regarding the predictive value. We report a case series and review the literature to summarizes the predictive value of combined somatostatin receptor (SSTR) and fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET in metastatic GEP-NETs. We conducted a review of the literature for data published from 2010 to 2021 in MEDLINE, Embase, the National Institutes of Health trial registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and published proceedings from major gastrointestinal and neuroendocrine cancer meetings. Our main criteria included all published prospective and retrospective data in which the predictive value of dual PET scans using SSTR and FDG was correlated with PRRT response in patients with metastatic GEP-NETs. We summarized clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and post-therapy complications associated with PRRT according to FDG avidity. We excluded studies that did not include FDG PET scan, GEP patients, studies with no clear predictive value of the FDG PET scan, and studies that did not report a direct correlation between FDG avidity and primary outcome. Additionally, we summarized our institutional experience in eight patients who progressed during or within the first year of PRRT treatment. Our search identified 1306 articles; most of them showed only the prognostic value of Integrated SSTR/FDG PET imaging biomarker in GEP-NETs. Only three studies (n=75 patients) met our inclusion criteria and retrospectively investigated the predictive value of dual SSTR and FDG imaging in subjects being considered for PRRT. The results confirmed that FDG avidity correlates with advanced NET grades. Lesions that are both SSTR and FDG avid had early disease progression. In one study, at multivariate analysis, FDG PET results were independently predictive of lower PFS for PRRT. In our case series, there were eight patients with metastatic well-differentiated GEP-NETs (grades 2 and 3) who progressed within one year of PRRT. Seven of them had positive FDG PET scan at the time of progression. In conclusion, Dual SSTR/FDG PET imaging has a potential predictive impact for PRRT in GEP-NETs. It permits the capturing of the disease complexity and aggressiveness, which correlates with PRRT response. Therefore, prospective future trials should validate the predictive value of dual SSTRs/FDG PET for better PRRT stratification.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37201086
doi: 10.21037/jgo-22-1011
pii: jgo-14-02-1087
pmc: PMC10186532
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1087-1094Informations de copyright
2023 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-22-1011/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
J Nucl Med. 2014 Nov;55(11):1786-90
pubmed: 25286923
Int J Mol Imaging. 2011;2011:524130
pubmed: 22121482
J Nucl Med. 2009 Jun;50(6):858-64
pubmed: 19443590
Gut. 1971 Oct;12(10):783-8
pubmed: 5123259
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 12;376(2):125-135
pubmed: 28076709
J Nucl Med. 2019 Mar;60(3):377-385
pubmed: 30115686
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Aug;43(9):1585-92
pubmed: 26922350
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Oct 01;3(10):1335-1342
pubmed: 28448665
Pancreas. 2017 Jul;46(6):707-714
pubmed: 28609356
J Nucl Med. 2020 Nov;61(11):1560-1569
pubmed: 32169914
Clin Nucl Med. 2021 Sep 1;46(9):723-731
pubmed: 34028406
Pancreas. 2020 Aug;49(7):863-881
pubmed: 32675783