Retrospective analysis of Gallium-68-DOTATATE PET CT effectiveness in detecting residual disease in gastroenteropancreatic NETs post-surgery, highlighting its role in clinical decision making.
Background/Objectives: For completely resected well differentiated (WD) gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) NET, guidelines differ in recommendations for utilization of SSTR-based functional imaging in post-operative surveillance. While 111In-Octreotide has previously been the standard of care, imaging with 68Ga-labelled peptides has expanded in recent years due to increased sensitivity to detect smaller volume diseases and reduced costs. Though many centres have widely adopted imaging with 68Ga-labelled peptides, its role in surveillance of resected GEP NET has not been well defined. We sought to characterize current utilization of imaging with 68Ga-DOTATATE PET CT (68Ga-DOTA) for post-operative surveillance of WD GEP NET and assess the impact on clinical management. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all 68Ga-DOTA scans performed from April 2019 to August 2024. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years with WD grade 1 and 2 GEP NET that had undergone curative-intent surgery, had Stage I-III disease at diagnosis, and had 68Ga-DOTA post-operatively. Results: Forty-six scans met the inclusion criteria. We identified four indications for 68Ga-DOTA: (1) post-operative assessment (n = 12); (2) routine surveillance (n = 18); (3) recurrence suspected based on cross-sectional imaging (n = 10); and (4) recurrence suspected based on biochemical monitoring (n = 6). Avidity for each indication was observed in 45%, 8%, 50%, and 80%, respectively. Initiation of long-acting somatostatin analogue was the most common management following avidity. Conclusions: 68Ga-DOTA best informed clinical decision making when there was clinical suspicion for residual or metastatic disease post-operatively or based on cross-sectional imaging or biochemistry. The utility of this modality for routine surveillance appears limited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lithgow et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: