Skip to main content
  • Main menu
  • User menu
  • Search
  • English ▼
    • English
    • Afrikaans
    • Albanian
    • Amharic
    • Arabic
    • Armenian
    • Azerbaijani
    • Basque
    • Belarusian
    • Bengali
    • Bosnian
    • Bulgarian
    • Catalan
    • Cebuano
    • Chichewa
    • Chinese (Simplified)
    • Chinese (Traditional)
    • Corsican
    • Croatian
    • Czech
    • Danish
    • Dutch
    • Esperanto
    • Estonian
    • Filipino
    • Finnish
    • French
    • Frisian
    • Galician
    • Georgian
    • German
    • Greek
    • Gujarati
    • Haitian Creole
    • Hausa
    • Hawaiian
    • Hebrew
    • Hindi
    • Hmong
    • Hungarian
    • Icelandic
    • Igbo
    • Indonesian
    • Irish
    • Italian
    • Japanese
    • Javanese
    • Kannada
    • Kazakh
    • Khmer
    • Korean
    • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
    • Kyrgyz
    • Lao
    • Latin
    • Latvian
    • Lithuanian
    • Luxembourgish
    • Macedonian
    • Malagasy
    • Malay
    • Malayalam
    • Maltese
    • Maori
    • Marathi
    • Mongolian
    • Myanmar (Burmese)
    • Nepali
    • Norwegian
    • Pashto
    • Persian
    • Polish
    • Portuguese
    • Punjabi
    • Romanian
    • Russian
    • Samoan
    • Scottish Gaelic
    • Serbian
    • Sesotho
    • Shona
    • Sindhi
    • Sinhala
    • Slovak
    • Slovenian
    • Somali
    • Spanish
    • Sudanese
    • Swahili
    • Swedish
    • Tajik
    • Tamil
    • Telugu
    • Thai
    • Turkish
    • Ukrainian
    • Urdu
    • Uzbek
    • Vietnamese
    • Welsh
    • Xhosa
    • Yiddish
    • Yoruba
    • Zulu

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

English ▼
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scottish Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sudanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu
  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Watch or Listen to JNMT Podcast
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
Research ArticleImaging

Discordance Between Histopathologic Grading and Dual-Tracer PET/CT Findings in Metastatic NETs and Outcome of 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT: Does In Vivo Molecular PET Perform Better from the Viewpoint of Prediction of Tumor Biology?

Aadil Adnan and Sandip Basu
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology September 2022, 50 (3) 248-255; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.121.261998
Aadil Adnan
1Radiation Medicine Centre, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India; and
2Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandip Basu
1Radiation Medicine Centre, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India; and
2Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    (A) Kaplan–Meier curves for PFS on basis of dual-tracer PET. (B) Kaplan–Meier curves for PFS on basis of 2017 WHO grading system. (C) Cox proportional hazards survival curves for PFS on basis of dual-tracer PET. (D) Cox proportional hazards survival curves for PFS on basis of 2017 WHO grading system. Kaplan–Meier and Cox curves showed significantly better PFS for metabolically inactive and SSTR-expressing group than for metabolically active and non–SSTR-expressing group when cohort was analyzed on basis of dual-tracer PET. Analysis based on 2017 WHO grading system did not yield any significant difference. Cum = cumulative.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    (A) Kaplan–Meier curves for OS on basis of dual-tracer PET. (B) Kaplan–Meier curves for OS on basis of 2017 WHO grading system. (C) Cox proportional hazards survival curves for OS on basis of dual-tracer PET. (D) Cox proportional hazards survival curves for OS on basis of 2017 WHO grading system. Kaplan–Meier and Cox curves showed significantly better OS for metabolically inactive and SSTR-expressing group than for metabolically active and non–SSTR-expressing group when cohort was analyzed on basis of dual-tracer PET. Analysis based on 2017 WHO grading system did not yield any significant difference. Cum = cumulative.

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    A 61-y-old man with NET metastatic to liver, mediastinal and abdominal nodes, and multiple skeletal sites, with unknown primary. Histopathology revealed poorly differentiated NEC, positive for synaptophysin and chromogranin, and CK19-positive on IHC. Despite high proliferative index of 25%, 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT at baseline revealed intense SSTR expression in hepatic and skeletal lesions and in mediastinal, abdominal, and pelvic nodes, whereas 18F-FDG PET/CT showed single metabolically active pariceliac node. Follow-up 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT revealed partial response, with decrease in size and SSTR expression in almost all lesions, whereas 18F-FDG PET/CT did not show any abnormal uptake, suggesting complete metabolic resolution. Despite poorly differentiated G3 NEC (WHO 2017), dual-tracer PET/CT studies suggested favorable tumor biology, which was adequately clinically translated. After third PRRT, patient is doing fine, with significant symptomatic and morphologic improvement.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    A 64-y-old woman with NET metastatic to liver and skeletal sites, with unknown primary. Patient presented with pain in abdomen and weight loss and was referred for PRRT in view of SSTR-expressing metastatic NET. Histopathology of liver lesion revealed metastatic, well-differentiated NET with MIB-1 index of 24%, positive for synaptophysin and chromogranin, and CDX2-negative on IHC. Baseline 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT revealed multiple areas of increased tracer uptake (SSTR expression) in both lobes of liver (bilobar hepatic metastases, which is not amenable to surgical resection) and skeletal sites, with no abnormal hypermetabolism evident on baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT. Follow-up dual-tracer PET/CT after 4 PRRTs showed decrease in number of smaller hepatic metastases, with mild interval decrease in size of larger hepatic lesion in left lobe (overall partial response). Dual-tracer PET/CT appeared to agree with histopathologic finding of well-differentiated G3 NET (WHO 2017), and findings were adequately clinically translated.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    WHO NET Classification: 2010 vs. 2017 (23)

    WHO classificationKi-67 indexMitoses/ 10 HPFs
    2010
     Well-differentiated NENs
      NET G1<3<2
      NET G23–202–20
     Poorly differentiated NENs
      NEC G3 (small cell   or large cell)>20>20
      MANEC
    2017
     Well-differentiated NENs
      NET G1<3<2
      NET G23–202–20
      NET G3>20>20
     Poorly differentiated NENs
      NEC G3>20>20
      Small cell type
      Large cell type
      MiNEN
    • HPF = high-power field.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Patient Demographics

    DemographicData
    Total patients36 (100%)
    Sex
     Male24 (67%)
     Female12 (33%)
    Age (y)
     Median50
     Range25–66
    Site of primary
     Pancreas12 (33.3%)
     Unknown7 (19.4%)
     Rectum5 (13.9%)
     Small bowel4 (11.1%)
     Lung3 (8.3%)
     Mediastinum2 (5.6%)
     Stomach1 (2.8%)
     Gallbladder1 (2.8%)
     Skin appendages (Merkel cell carcinoma)1 (2.8%)
    WHO grade (2017 classification)
     G1 NET7 (19.4%)
     G2 NET15 (41.7%)
     G3 NET7 (19.4%)
     G3 NEC7 (19.4%)
    Differentiation status
     Well-differentiated27 (75.0%)
     Poorly differentiated7 (19.4%)
     Not known2 (5.6%)
    • Data are number and percentage, except for age.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Histopathologic Characteristics

    CharacteristicData
    Synaptophysin (IHC)
     Positive30 (83.3%)
     Negative6 (16.7%)
    Chromogranin A (IHC)
     Positive26 (72.2%)
     Negative3 (8.3%)
     Not known7 (19.4%)
    Epithelial markers (AE1/AE3; IHC)
     Positive11 (30.6%)
     Negative2 (5.6%)
     Not known23 (63.9%)
    Other IHC markers (ATRX, cytokeratin, CD56, CK7, CK19, CK20, and CDX2)
     Positive10 (27.8%)
     Not known26 (72.2%)
    • Data are number and percentage.

    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    Dual-Tracer PET Characteristics

    CharacteristicData
    Baseline 18F-FDG uptake (SUVmax)
     <514 (38.9%)
     5–105 (13.9%)
     10–2010 (27.8%)
     >207 (19.4%)
    Baseline DOTATATE uptake
     Krenning 12 (5.6%)
     Krenning 25 (13.9%)
     Krenning 310 (27.8%)
     Krenning 419 (52.8%)
    Dual-tracer PET
     Metabolically inactive and  SSTR-expressing14 (38.9%)
     Metabolically active and  non–SSTR-expressing10 (27.8%)
     Matched (metabolically active  and SSTR-expressing)12 (33.3%)
    • Data are number and percentage.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 50 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 50, Issue 3
September 1, 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Share
Discordance Between Histopathologic Grading and Dual-Tracer PET/CT Findings in Metastatic NETs and Outcome of 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT: Does In Vivo Molecular PET Perform Better from the Viewpoint of Prediction of Tumor Biology?
Aadil Adnan, Sandip Basu
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Sep 2022, 50 (3) 248-255; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.121.261998
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Early 10-Minute Postinjection [18F]F-FAPI-42 uEXPLORER Total-Body PET/CT Scanning Protocol for Staging Lung Cancer Using HYPER Iterative Reconstruction
  • Single- Versus Dual-Time-Point Imaging for Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloid Using 99mTc-Pyrophosphate
  • Robustness of 18F-FDG PET Radiomic Features in Lung Cancer: Impact of Advanced Reconstruction Algorithm
Show more Imaging

Similar Articles

  • Single- Versus Dual-Time-Point Imaging for Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloid Using 99mTc-Pyrophosphate
  • The Role of [99mTc]Tc-Sestamibi in Functional Imaging of the Iodine-Loaded Thyroid Gland
  • Assessment of Residual [99mTc]Tc-Tetrofosmin Activity in Routine Nuclear Medicine Practice at Hospital Kuala Lumpur
  • The Medical Isotope Crisis: How We Got Here and Where We Are Going
  • Validation of an Ergonomic Method of Withdrawing 99mTc-Radiopharmaceuticals
See more

Keywords

  • neuroendocrine neoplasm
  • histopathologic grading
  • dual-tracer PET/CT
  • 68Ga-DOTATATE
  • 177Lu-DOTATATE
  • Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire
Alerts for this Article
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email this Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Discordance Between Histopathologic Grading and Dual-Tracer PET/CT Findings in Metastatic NETs and Outcome of 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT: Does In Vivo Molecular PET Perform Better from the Viewpoint of Prediction of Tumor Biology?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
Discordance Between Histopathologic Grading and Dual-Tracer PET/CT Findings in Metastatic NETs and Outcome of 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT: Does In Vivo Molecular PET Perform Better from the Viewpoint of Prediction of Tumor Biology?
Aadil Adnan, Sandip Basu
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Sep 2022, 50 (3) 248-255; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.121.261998

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.