Radiologia Brasileira - Publicação Científica Oficial do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) constitute a heterogeneous group of neoplasms that account for approximately 0.5% of all newly diagnosed malignancies. The primary sites of NETs are the gastrointestinal tract (in 65%) and the lungs (in 25%). Nearly one quarter of all NETs are metastatic at diagnosis⁽¹⁾. Most NETs express somatostatin receptors (SSTRs) in the cell membrane, which allows the use of radiotracers that bind with high affinity to SSTRs, such radiotracers being used for diagnosis, staging, prediction of a treatment response and even as therapeutic agents^(2–4). The first radiotracer used in order to evaluate SSTR expression was ¹²³I-labeled Tyr³-octreotide, which was developed in 1983⁽⁵⁾. Because of the excessive intestinal accumulation of this tracer due to high biliary excretion, there was a search for a better radiotracer, which resulted in the development of [(¹¹¹)In-DTPA(0)]octreotide (¹¹¹In-pentetreotide). In 1993, Eric Krenning’s team published data related to the use of ¹¹¹In-pentetreotide imaging in more than 1,000 patients, demonstrating that the modality has good sensitivity and specificity⁽⁶⁾. Trials of ¹¹¹In-pentetreotide established the pathway to developing tracers dedicated to therapy using the same mechanism of cell binding (theranostics), designated peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), which is now considered an important option for the treatment of patients with well-differentiated NETs⁽²⁾.

Despite the established clinical value of using ¹¹¹In-pentetreotide as a radiotracer, it has some shortcomings, including a high radiation burden, less than optimal spatial resolution (i.e., less ability to detect small lesions), longer image acquisition time, some accumulation in the intestine/gallbladder, and less availability⁽⁷⁾. In an article published in the previous issue of Radiologia Brasileira, Cavicchioli et al.⁽⁸⁾ compared the use of ⁶⁸Ga-DOTA-D-Phe¹,Tyr³-octreotate (⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE) positronemission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with that of ¹¹¹In-octreotide scintigraphy in 41 patients with NETs. Images were compared in a patient-by-patient analysis to identify additional lesions and determine their impact on clinical management. In 33 patients, both exams were positive, although ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT revealed more positive sites in one third of the cases (11 patients). The results were discordant in five patients, in whom ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT was positive and ¹¹¹In-octreotide scintigraphy was negative. In five patients, there were changes in clinical management based on the additional information obtained by ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT. The authors concluded that ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT is superior to conventional ¹¹¹In-octreotide scintigraphy for the management of NETs because the former better discriminates the extent of disease and has greater capacity to change the treatment strategy.

How do the findings of Cavicchioli et al.⁽⁸⁾ relate to data in the literature? Their findings are in good agreement with the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2016, in which ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT was compared with ¹¹¹In-DTPA-octreotide imaging and conventional imaging for the evaluation of pulmonary and gastroenteropancreatic NETs⁽⁹⁾. Only three of the studies evaluated in that review directly compared the two radiopharmaceuticals in the same patient, and the results were similar: for the diagnosis and reassessment of tumors with high SSTR expression, 68Ga-DOTATATE is more sensitive than is ¹¹¹In-DTPA-octreotide and should be used if available. Here in Brazil, Etchebehere et al.⁽¹⁰⁾ compared another single-photon emission CT (SPECT) tracer with high affinity for SSTRs (^99mTc-HYNIC-octreotide) with ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE and found that the latter seems to be more sensitive for the detection of well-differentiated NETs, especially those in bone and those that were previously unknown. Those authors suggested that SSTR-binding SPECT tracers should be used only when ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and magnetic resonance are not available. We strongly agree with this recommendation, and we can state that ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT should be the functional imaging modality of choice in the management of patients with NETs. SPECT, preferably SPECT/CT, should be reserved for cases in which ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT is not available. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for NETs currently recommend that SSTR imaging options should include SSTR-PET/CT or SSTR-PET/MRI, or octreotide SPECT/CT (only if SSTR-PET/CT is not available)⁽¹¹⁾.

Not only is ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT more accurate than octreotide SPECT for NET localization, it also plays an important role in the selection of NET patients for treatment. In 2017, a landmark clinical trial demonstrated the benefit of the use of PRRT in patients with metastatic midgut NETs with SSTR expression⁽²⁾. In that study, progression-free survival was markedly longer among the patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTATATE than among those who received high-dose octreotide. Our personal experience is that PET/CT is preferred for selecting patients for PRRT because it can identify patients that have advanced disease not diagnosed by conventional imaging, thus avoiding unnecessary surgical procedures.

In addition, ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT is a marker of prognosis: increased uptake of the tracer in a tumor indicates well-differentiated neoplastic cells, which has been shown to correlate with improved overall survival⁽¹²⁾. However, ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake on PET has an opposite prognostic association: higher FDG uptake in tumors has consistently been associated with poorer overall survival. A recent meta-analysis showed that, in NET patients, ¹⁸F-FDG PET imaging prior to PRRT administration appears to be a useful tool to predict tumor response and survival outcomes, negative FDG uptake by the tumor being associated with longer progression-free and overall survival⁽¹³⁾. Based on those findings, there are classifications for clinical use that combine the FDG PET results with those of ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET in staging subjects with NET, to provide better support for clinical management.

Novel radiotracers for SSTR imaging are under study. It has been shown that ¹⁸F-labeled tracers have better resolution potential than do ⁶⁸Ga-labeled tracers because of their lower positron energy. Therefore, there is intense interest in adding a cyclotron-produced tracer to the clinical portfolio; one of the best candidates is ¹⁸F-AlF-NOTA-octreotide ([¹⁸F]AlF-OC), because it shows favorable kinetic and imaging characteristics^(14,15). Studies involving head-to-head comparisons to validate [¹⁸F]AlF-OC as a ¹⁸F-labeled alternative to ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE in clinical applications of PET are now underway and must be completed before this tracer can be used in clinical practice. The pathway to the development of new tracers and the use of PRRT for the management of NETs is a brilliant example of the importance of the scientific effort. Patients with rare diseases such as NETs can derive great benefit from well-designed research and teamwork.


REFERENCES

1. Oronsky B, Ma PC, Morgensztern D, et al. Nothing but NET: a review of neuroendocrine tumors and carcinomas. Neoplasia. 2017;19:991–1002.

2. Strosberg J, El-Haddad G, Wolin E, et al. Phase 3 trial of ¹⁷⁷Lu-dotatate for midgut neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:125–35.

3. Fallahi B, Manafi-Farid R, Eftekhari M, et al. Diagnostic efficiency of ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT as compared to ^99mTc-octreotide SPECT/CT and conventional morphologic modalities in neuroendocrine tumors. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2019;7:129–40.

4. Ortega C, Wong RKS, Schaefferkoetter J, et al. Quantitative ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT parameters for the prediction of therapy response in patients with progressive metastatic neuroendocrine tumors treated with ¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTATATE. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:1406–14.

5. Levine R, Krenning EP. Clinical history of the theranostic radionuclide approach to neuroendocrine tumors and other types of cancer: historical review based on an interview of Eric P. Krenning by Rachel Levine. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(Suppl 2):3S–9S.

6. Krenning EP, Kwekkeboom DJ, Bakker WH, et al. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy with [111In-DTPA-D-Phel]-and [123I-Tyr3]-octreotide: the Rotterdam experience with more than 1000 patients. Eur J Nucl Med. 1993;20:716–31.

7. Bombardieri E, Ambrosini V, Aktolun C, et al. 111In-pentetreotide scintigraphy: procedure guidelines for tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1441–8.

8. Cavicchioli M, Bitencourt AGV, Lima ENP. ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT versus ¹¹¹In-octreotide scintigraphy in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: a prospective study. Radiol Bras. 2022;55:13–18.

9. Deppen SA, Blume J, Bobbey AJ, et al. 68Ga-DOTATATE compared with 111In-DTPA-octreotide and conventional imaging for pulmonary and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:872–8.

10. Etchebehere ECSC, Santos AO, Gumz B, et al. 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT, 99mTc-HYNIC-octreotide SPECT/CT, and whole-body MR imaging in detection of neuroendocrine tumors: a prospective trial. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1598–604.

11. Shah MH, Goldner WS, Benson AB, et al. Neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19:839–68.

12. Campana D, Ambrosini V, Pezzilli R, et al. Standardized uptake values of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET: a promising prognostic tool in neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:353–9.

13. Alevroudis E, Spei ME, Chatziioannou SN, et al. Clinical utility of ¹⁸FFDG PET in neuroendocrine tumors prior to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:1813.

14. Pauwels E, Cleeren F, Tshibangu T, et al. [¹⁸F]AlF-NOTA-octreotide PET imaging: biodistribution, dosimetry and first comparison with [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTATATE in neuroendocrine tumour patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:3033–46.

15. Long T, Yang N, Zhou M, et al. Clinical application of 18F-AlF-NOTA-octreotide PET/CT in combination with 18F-FDG PET/CT for imaging neuroendocrine neoplasms. Clin Nucl Med. 2019;44:452–8.










1. Radiology Department, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Niterói, RJ, Brazil
2. Hospital Pró-Cardíaco, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
3. Hospital Vitória e Hospital Samaritano da Barra, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Correspondence: Dr. Cláudio Tinoco Mesquita. Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade Federal Fluminense – Departamento de Radiologia. Rua Marquês do Paraná, 303, Centro. Niterói, RJ, Brazil, 24033-900. Email: claudiotinocomesquita@id.uff.br

a. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1466-9413
b. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5103-5498
c. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0022-6312