Imaging surveillance in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: Ten years of experience with somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography.
multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1
neuroendocrine neoplasms
positron emission tomography
radiation exposure
somatostatin receptors
Journal
Journal of neuroendocrinology
ISSN: 1365-2826
Titre abrégé: J Neuroendocrinol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8913461
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
revised:
23
06
2023
received:
08
10
2022
accepted:
29
06
2023
medline:
28
8
2023
pubmed:
11
8
2023
entrez:
11
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Guidelines for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) recommend intensive imaging surveillance without specifying a superior regimen, including the role of somatostatin receptor imaging (SRI) with positron emission tomography (PET). The primary outcomes were to: (1) Assess change in treatment of duodenal-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (DP-NENs), bronchopulmonary NENs, and thymic tumors attributed to use of SRI PET/computed tomography (CT) and (2) estimate radiation from imaging and risk of cancer death attributed to imaging radiation. This was a retrospective single center study, including all MEN1 patients, who had had at least one SRI PET/CT. A total of 60 patients, median age 42 (range 21-54) years, median follow-up 6 (range 1-10) years were included. Of 470 cross sectional scans (MRI, CT, SRI PET/CT), 209 were SRI PET/CT. The additional information from SRI PET had implications in 1/14 surgical interventions and 2/12 medical interventions. The estimated median radiation dose per patient was 104 (range 51-468) mSv of which PET contributed with 13 (range 5-55) mSv and CT with 91 mSv (range 46-413 mSv), corresponding to an estimated increased median risk of cancer death of 0.5% during 6 years follow-up. SRI PET had a significant impact on 3/26 decisions to intervene in 60 MEN1 patients followed for a median of 6 years with SRI PET/CT as the most frequently used modality. The surveillance program showed a high radiation dose. Multi-modality imaging strategies designed to minimize radiation exposure should be considered. Based on our findings, SRI-PET combined with CT cannot be recommended for routine surveillance in MEN1 patients.
Substances chimiques
Receptors, Somatostatin
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13322Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Neuroendocrinology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Society for Neuroendocrinology.
Références
Thakker RV, Newey PJ, Walls GV, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(9):2990-3011.
van Treijen MJC, van Beek DJ, van Leeuwaarde RS, Vriens MR, Valk GD. Diagnosing nonfunctional pancreatic NETs in MEN1: the evidence base. J Endocr Soc. 2018;2(9):1067-1088.
Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D, et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology. 2020;76(2):182-188.
Niederle B, Selberherr A, Bartsch DK, et al. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 and the pancreas: diagnosis and treatment of functioning and non-functioning pancreatic and duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasia within the MEN1 syndrome-an international consensus statement. Neuroendocrinology. 2021;111(7):609-630.
Ito T, Igarashi H, Uehara H, Berna MJ, Jensen RT. Causes of death and prognostic factors in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: a prospective study: comparison of 106 MEN1/Zollinger-Ellison syndrome patients with 1613 literature MEN1 patients with or without pancreatic endocrine tumors. Medicine (Baltimore). 2013;92(3):135-181.
Conemans EB, Nell S, Pieterman CRC, et al. Prognostic factors for survival of MEN1 patients with duodenopancreatic tumors metastatic to the liver: results from the DMSG. Endocr Pract. 2017;23(6):641-648.
Goudet P, Murat A, Binquet C, et al. Risk factors and causes of death in MEN1 disease. A GTE (Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Endocrines) cohort study among 758 patients. World J Surg. 2010;34(2):249-255.
Singh Ospina N, Thompson GB, C Nichols F, D Cassivi S, Young WF. Thymic and bronchial carcinoid tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: the Mayo Clinic experience from 1977 to 2013. Hormones Cancer. 2015;6(5-6):247-253. doi:10.1007/s12672-015-0228-z
Sachithanandan N, Harle RA, Burgess JR. Bronchopulmonary carcinoid in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Cancer. 2005;103(3):509-515.
Syro LV, Scheithauer BW, Kovacs K, et al. Pituitary tumors in patients with MEN1 syndrome. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(Suppl 1):43-48.
Johnbeck CB, Knigge U, Loft A, et al. Head-to-head comparison of (64)Cu-DOTATATE and (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT: a prospective study of 59 patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(3):451-457.
Newey PJ, Newell-Price J. MEN1 surveillance guidelines: time to (re)think? J Endocr Soc. 2022;6(2):bvac001.
Casey RT, Saunders D, Challis BG, et al. Radiological surveillance in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: a double-edged sword? Endocr Connect. 2017;6(3):151-158.
Ito T, Jensen RT. Imaging in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: recent studies show enhanced sensitivities but increased controversies. Int J Endocr Oncol. 2016;3(1):53-66.
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography-an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277-2284.
Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2071-2077.
Treglia G, Castaldi P, Rindi G, Giordano A, Rufini V. Diagnostic performance of Gallium-68 somatostatin receptor PET and PET/CT in patients with thoracic and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a meta-analysis. Endocrine. 2012;42(1):80-87.
Albers MB, Librizzi D, Lopez CL, et al. Limited value of Ga-68-DOTATOC-PET-CT in routine screening of patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. World J Surg. 2017;41(6):1521-1527.
Froeling V, Elgeti F, Maurer MH, et al. Impact of Ga-68 DOTATOC PET/CT on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26(9):738-743.
Goroshi M, Bandgar T, Lila AR, et al. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 syndrome: single centre experience from western India. Fam Cancer. 2016;15(4):617-624.
Lastoria S, Marciello F, Faggiano A, et al. Role of (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). Endocrine. 2016;52(3):488-494.
Morgat C, Vélayoudom-Céphise FL, Schwartz P, 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(7):1258-1266.
Sadowski SM, Millo C, Cottle-Delisle C, et al. Results of (68)gallium-DOTATATE PET/CT scanning in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(2):509-517.
Cuthbertson DJ, Barriuso J, Lamarca A, et al. The impact of (68)gallium DOTA PET/CT in managing patients with sporadic and familial pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:654975.
Mennetrey C, le Bras M, Bando-Delaunay A, et al. Value of somatostatin receptor PET/CT in patients with MEN1 at various stages of their disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(5):e2056-e2064.
Patil VA, Goroshi MR, Shah H, et al. Comparison of (68)Ga-DOTA-NaI(3)-octreotide/tyr(3)-octreotate positron emission tomography/computed tomography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in localization of tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia 1 syndrome. World J Nucl Med. 2020;19(2):99-105.
Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17(5):405-424.
Schmidt AY, Hansen TO, Ahlborn LB, Jønson L, Yde CW, Nielsen FC. Next-generation sequencing-based detection of germline copy number variations in BRCA1/BRCA2: validation of a one-step diagnostic workflow. J Mol Diagn. 2017;19(6):809-816.
Sundin A, Arnold R, Baudin E, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for the standards of care in neuroendocrine tumors: radiological, nuclear medicine and hybrid imaging. Neuroendocrinology. 2017;105(3):212-244.
American Cancer Association. Understanding radiation risk from imaging tests. 2018. Available from: https://amp.cancer.org/treatment/understanding-your-diagnosis/tests/understanding-radiation-risk-from-imaging-tests.html
Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2078-2086.
Info R. Radiation dose. 2021. Available from: https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info/safety-xray
America, C.T.C.o. Low-dose ct (LDCT) scan. 2022. Available from: https://www.cancercenter.com/cancer-types/lung-cancer/diagnosis-and-detection/low-dose-ct-scan
Lin EC. Radiation risk from medical imaging. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85(12):1142-1146. quiz 1146.
Smith TE, Steven A, Bagert BA. Gadolinium deposition in neurology clinical practice. Ochsner J. 2019;19(1):17-25.
Guo BJ, Yang ZL, Zhang LJ. Gadolinium deposition in brain: current scientific evidence and future perspectives. Front Mol Neurosci. 2018;11:335.
Barbe C, Murat A, Dupas B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus endoscopic ultrasonography for the detection of pancreatic tumours in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Dig Liver Dis. 2012;44(3):228-234.
Albers MB, Manoharan J, Bollmann C, Chlosta MP, Holzer K, Bartsch DK. Results of duodenopancreatic reoperations in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. World J Surg. 2019;43(2):552-558.