Advertisement

Endocrine

, Volume 64, Issue 3, pp 456–468 | Cite as

Detection rate of unknown primary tumour by using somatostatin receptor PET/CT in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumours: a meta-analysis

  • Sara De Dosso
  • Giorgio TregliaEmail author
  • Mariarosa Pascale
  • Adriana Tamburello
  • Prasanna Santhanam
  • Alexander S. Kroiss
  • Ricardo Pereira Mestre
  • Piercarlo Saletti
  • Luca Giovanella
Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Purpose

The high diagnostic performance of somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) in neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) was demonstrated by several articles. However, only some studies evaluated the detection rate (DR) of this imaging method in patients with metastatic NETs and unknown primary tumours (CUP-NETs). Therefore, we aimed to perform a meta-analysis to add evidence-based data in this setting.

Methods

A comprehensive computer literature search of studies listed in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases through December 2018 and regarding the use of somatostatin receptor PET/CT in patients with CUP-NETs was carried out. Pooled DR of CUP-NETs by using somatostatin receptor PET/CT was calculated. A pooled analysis evaluating the percentage of change of management by using somatostatin receptor PET/CT in these patients was also performed.

Results

Twelve studies on the use of somatostatin receptor PET/CT in detecting CUP-NETs in 383 metastatic patients were included. The meta-analysis of all these studies provided the following DR on a per patient-based analysis: 56% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 48–63%). Moderate heterogeneity among the selected studies was found (I2 = 50%), whereas a significant publication bias was excluded by Egger’s test (p = 0.45). The most common primary tumour sites were the bowel and the pancreas. A change of management by using somatostatin receptor PET/CT was demonstrated in 20% (95% CI: 10–33%) of patients with CUP-NET.

Conclusions

Somatostatin receptor PET/CT is very useful in detecting CUP-NETs in patients with metastatic disease. More studies on the change of management by using this imaging method in this setting are needed.

Keywords

PET Somatostatin Neuroendocrine Unknown primary CUP-NET. 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the staff of the Clinical Trial Unit of Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale for their support. The Clinical Trail Unit of Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale was in charge of literature search, statistical analysis and manuscript writing.

Funding

This study was performed through a funded activity of the Clinical Trial Unit of Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    T. Bochtler, H. Loffler, A. Kramer, Diagnosis and management of metastatic neoplasms with unknown primary. Semin. Diagn. Pathol. 35(3), 199–206 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semdp.2017.11.013 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Alexandraki, A. Angelousi, G. Boutzios, G. Kyriakopoulos, D. Rontogianni, G. Kaltsas, Management of neuroendocrine tumors of unknown primary. Rev. Endocr. Metab. Disord. 18(4), 423–431 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11154-017-9437-9 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Givi, S.J. Pommier, A.K. Thompson, B.S. Diggs, R.F. Pommier, Operative resection of primary carcinoid neoplasms in patients with liver metastases yields significantly better survival. Surgery 140(6), 891–897 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2006.07.033. discussion 897-898Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.F. Bozkurt, I. Virgolini, S. Balogova, M. Beheshti, D. Rubello, C. Decristoforo, V. Ambrosini, A. Kjaer, R. Delgado-Bolton, J. Kunikowska, W.J.G. Oyen, A. Chiti, F. Giammarile, A. Sundin, S. Fanti, Guideline for PET/CT imaging of neuroendocrine neoplasms with (68)Ga-DOTA-conjugated somatostatin receptor targeting peptides and (18)F-DOPA. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. imaging 44(9), 1588–1601 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3728-y Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Treglia, R. Sadeghi, A. Del Sole, L. Giovanella, Diagnostic performance of PET/CT with tracers other than F-18-FDG in oncology: an evidence-based review. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 16(9), 770–775 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-014-1168-8 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Treglia, A.S. Kroiss, A. Piccardo, F. Lococo, P. Santhanam, A. Imperiale, Role of positron emission tomography in thyroid and neuroendocrine tumors. Minerva Endocrinol. 43(3), 341–355 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.23736/s0391-1977.17.02742-0 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Singh, R. Poon, R. Wong, U. Metser, 68Ga PET imaging in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Nucl. Med. 43(11), 802–810 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000002276 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Barrio, J. Czernin, S. Fanti, V. Ambrosini, I. Binse, L. Du, M. Eiber, K. Herrmann, W.P. Fendler, The impact of somatostatin receptor-directed PET/CT on the management of patients with neuroendocrine tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Nucl. Med. 58(5), 756–761 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.185587 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S.A. Deppen, J. Blume, A.J. Bobbey, C. Shah, M.M. Graham, P. Lee, D. Delbeke, R.C. Walker, 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. 57(6), 872–878 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.165803 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Geijer, L.H. Breimer, Somatostatin receptor PET/CT in neuroendocrine tumours: update on systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. imaging 40(11), 1770–1780 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2482-z Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Treglia, P. Castaldi, G. Rindi, A. Giordano, V. Rufini, Diagnostic performance of Gallium-68 somatostatin receptor PET and PET/CT in patients with thoracic and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a meta-analysis. Endocrine 42(1), 80–87 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-012-9631-1 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Santhanam, S. Chandramahanti, A. Kroiss, R. Yu, P. Ruszniewski, R. Kumar, D. Taieb, Nuclear imaging of neuroendocrine tumors with unknown primary: why, when and how? Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. imaging 42(7), 1144–1155 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3027-4 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.D.F. McInnes, D. Moher, B.D. Thombs, T.A. McGrath, P.M. Bossuyt, T. Clifford, J.F. Cohen, J.J. Deeks, C. Gatsonis, L. Hooft, H.A. Hunt, C.J. Hyde, D.A. Korevaar, M.M.G. Leeflang, P. Macaskill, J.B. Reitsma, R. Rodin, A.W.S. Rutjes, J.P. Salameh, A. Stevens, Y. Takwoingi, M. Tonelli, L. Weeks, P. Whiting, B.H. Willis, Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 319(4), 388–396 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19163 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Simera, D. Moher, J. Hoey, K.F. Schulz, D.G. Altman, A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 40(1), 35–53 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02234.x Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Sadeghi, G. Treglia, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic studies: a practical guideline. Clin. Transl. Imaging 5(2), 83–87 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0219-2 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P.F. Whiting, A.W. Rutjes, M.E. Westwood, S. Mallett, J.J. Deeks, J.B. Reitsma, M.M. Leeflang, J.A. Sterne, P.M. Bossuyt, QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 155(8), 529–536 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.P. Higgins, S.G. Thompson, Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21(11), 1539–1558 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R.M. Harbord, M. Egger, J.A. Sterne, A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat. Med. 25(20), 3443–3457 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2380 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. Sampathirao, S. Basu, MIB-1 index-stratified assessment of dual-tracer PET/CT with (68)Ga-DOTATATE and (18)F-FDG and multimodality anatomic imaging in metastatic neuroendocrine tumors of unknown primary in a PRRT workup setting. J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 45(1), 34–41 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.116.185777 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Y. Menda, T.M. O’Dorisio, J.R. Howe, M. Schultz, J.S. Dillon, D. Dick, G.L. Watkins, T. Ginader, D.L. Bushnell, J.J. Sunderland, G.K.D. Zamba, M. Graham, M.S. O’Dorisio, Localization of unknown primary site with (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumor. J. Nucl. Med. 58(7), 1054–1057 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.180984 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P.M. Kazmierczak, A. Rominger, V. Wenter, C. Spitzweg, C. Auernhammer, M.K. Angele, C. Rist, C.C. Cyran, The added value of (68)Ga-DOTA-TATE-PET to contrast-enhanced CT for primary site detection in CUP of neuroendocrine origin. Eur. Radiol. 27(4), 1676–1684 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4475-3 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S.M. Sadowski, V. Neychev, C. Millo, J. Shih, N. Nilubol, P. Herscovitch, K. Pacak, S.J. Marx, E. Kebebew, Prospective study of 68Ga-DOTATATE positron emission tomography/computed tomography for detecting gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and unknown primary sites. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(6), 588–596 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.64.0987 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Pruthi, P. Pankaj, R. Verma, A. Jain, E.S. Belho, H. Mahajan, Ga-68 DOTANOC PET/CT imaging in detection of primary site in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumours of unknown origin and its impact on clinical decision making: experience from a tertiary care centre in India. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 7(3), 449–461 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.21037/jgo.2016.01.06 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Y. Nakamoto, K. Sano, T. Ishimori, M. Ueda, T. Temma, H. Saji, K. Togashi, Additional information gained by positron emission tomography with (68)Ga-DOTATOC for suspected unknown primary or recurrent neuroendocrine tumors. Ann. Nucl. Med. 29(6), 512–518 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-0973-7 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O. Alonso, M. Rodriguez-Taroco, E. Savio, C. Bentancourt, J.P. Gambini, H. Engler, 68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in the evaluation of patients with neuroendocrine metastatic carcinoma of unknown origin. Ann. Nucl. Med. 28(7), 638–645 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-014-0856-3 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    N.F. Schreiter, A.M. Bartels, V. Froeling, I. Steffen, U.F. Pape, A. Beck, B. Hamm, W. Brenner, R. Rottgen, Searching for primaries in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET) of unknown primary and clinically suspected NET: evaluation of Ga-68 DOTATOC PET/CT and In-111 DTPA octreotide SPECT/CT. Radiol. Oncol. 48(4), 339–347 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2014-0018 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    T.H. Tan, B.N. Lee, S.Z. Hassan, Diagnostic value of (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in liver metastases of neuroendocrine tumours of unknown origin. Nucl. Med. Mol. imaging 48(3), 212–215 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-013-0258-9 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    N. Naswa, P. Sharma, A. Kumar, R. Soundararajan, R. Kumar, A. Malhotra, A.C. Ammini, C. Bal, (6)(8)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary of neuroendocrine origin. Clin. Nucl. Med. 37(3), 245–251 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e31823ea730 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Lapinska, M. Bryszewska, A. Fijolek-Warszewska, I. Kozlowicz-Gudzinska, P. Ochman, A. Sackiewicz-Slaby, The diagnostic role of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in the detection of neuroendocrine tumours. Nucl. Med. Rev. Cent. East. Eur. 14(1), 16–20 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    V. Prasad, V. Ambrosini, M. Hommann, D. Hoersch, S. Fanti, R.P. Baum, Detection of unknown primary neuroendocrine tumours (CUP-NET) using (68)Ga-DOTA-NOC receptor PET/CT. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. imaging 37(1), 67–77 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1205-y Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Gabriel, P. Garrigue, L. Dahan, F. Castinetti, F. Sebag, K. Baumstark, C. Archange, A. Jha, K. Pacak, B. Guillet, D. Taieb, Prospective evaluation of (68) Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in limited disease neuroendocrine tumours and/or elevated serum neuroendocrine biomarkers. Clin. Endocrinol. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.13745
  32. 32.
    S.H. Chen, Y.C. Chang, T.L. Hwang, J.S. Chen, W.C. Chou, C.H. Hsieh, T.S. Yeh, J.T. Hsu, C.N. Yeh, J.H. Tseng, T.C. Chen, T.C. Yen, 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. 117(6), 480–487 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2017.07.007 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. Tirosh, G.Z. Papadakis, C. Millo, S.M. Sadowski, P. Herscovitch, K. Pacak, S.J. Marx, L. Yang, P. Nockel, J. Shell, P. Green, X.M. Keutgen, D. Patel, N. Nilubol, E. Kebebew, Association between neuroendocrine tumors biomarkers and primary tumor site and disease type based on total (68)Ga-DOTATATE-Avid tumor volume measurements. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 176(5), 575–582 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1530/eje-16-1079 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    P. Thapa, R. Ranade, V. Ostwal, S.V. Shrikhande, M. Goel, S. Basu, Performance of 177Lu-DOTATATE-based peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: a multiparametric response evaluation correlating with primary tumor site, tumor proliferation index, and dual tracer imaging characteristics. Nucl. Med. Commun. 37(10), 1030–1037 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1097/mnm.0000000000000547 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J. Kunikowska, D. Pawlak, A. Kolasa, R. Mikolajczak, L. Krolicki, A frequency and semiquantitative analysis of pathological 68Ga DOTATATE PET/CT uptake by primary site-dependent neuroendocrine tumor metastasis. Clin. Nucl. Med. 39(10), 855–861 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000000533 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Pavel, D. O’Toole, F. Costa, J. Capdevila, D. Gross, R. Kianmanesh, E. Krenning, U. Knigge, R. Salazar, U.F. Pape, K. Oberg, ENETS consensus guidelines update for the management of distant metastatic disease of intestinal, pancreatic, bronchial neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) and NEN of unknown primary site. Neuroendocrinology 103(2), 172–185 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1159/000443167 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. Polish, M.T. Vergo, M. Agulnik, Management of neuroendocrine tumors of unknown origin. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 9(12), 1397–1402 (2011). quiz 1403Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    M.H. Shah, W.S. Goldner, T.R. Halfdanarson, E. Bergsland, J.D. Berlin, D. Halperin, J. Chan, M.H. Kulke, A.B. Benson 3rd, L.S. Blaszkowsky, J. Eads, P.F. Engstrom, P. Fanta, T. Giordano, J. He, M.J. Heslin, G.P. Kalemkerian, F. Kandeel, S.A. Khan, W.Z. Kidwai, P.L. Kunz, B.W. Kuvshinoff 2nd, C. Lieu, V.G. Pillarisetty, L. Saltz, J.A. Sosa, J.R. Strosberg, C.A. Sussman, N.A. Trikalinos, N.A. Uboha, J. Whisenant, T. Wong, J.C. Yao, J.L. Burns, N. Ogba, G. Zuccarino-Catania, NCCN Guidelines insights: neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors, Version 2.2018. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 16(6), 693–702 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2018.0056 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    V. Rufini, G. Treglia, F. Montravers, A. Giordano, Diagnostic accuracy of [18F]DOPA PET and PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: a meta-analysis. Clin. Transl. Imaging 1, 111–122 (2013)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A. Imperiale, E. Rust, S. Gabriel, J. Detour, B. Goichot, B. Duclos, J.E. Kurtz, P. Bachellier, I.J. Namer, D. Taieb, 18F-fluorodihydroxyphenylalanine PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumors of unknown origin: relation to tumor origin and differentiation. J. Nucl. Med. 55(3), 367–372 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.126896 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara De Dosso
    • 1
  • Giorgio Treglia
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  • Mariarosa Pascale
    • 4
  • Adriana Tamburello
    • 6
  • Prasanna Santhanam
    • 7
  • Alexander S. Kroiss
    • 8
  • Ricardo Pereira Mestre
    • 1
  • Piercarlo Saletti
    • 1
  • Luca Giovanella
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinic of Medical OncologyOncology Institute of Southern SwitzerlandBellinzonaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Clinic of Nuclear MedicineImaging Institute of Southern SwitzerlandBellinzonaSwitzerland
  3. 3.Health Technology Assessment UnitEnte Ospedaliero CantonaleBellinzonaSwitzerland
  4. 4.Clinical Trial Unit, Ente Ospedaliero CantonaleBellinzonaSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular ImagingLausanne University Hospital and University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  6. 6.Clinic of Internal MedicineEnte Ospedaliero CantonaleLuganoSwitzerland
  7. 7.Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism, Department of MedicineJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  8. 8.Department of Nuclear MedicineMedical University InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations