Comparative analysis shows [68Ga]DOTATOC PET increases PRRT eligibility in GEP-NETs, indicating its clinical significance.
Background: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an established treatment for somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs), with eligibility determined by the Krenning score. While SSTR PET provides greater sensitivity than octreotide scintigraphy, its impact on PRRT eligibility remains unclear. We compared Krenning scores between [111In]octreotide scintigraphy and [68Ga]DOTATOC PET and assessed eligibility under NETTER-1 and NETTER-2 criteria. Methods: We retrospectively assessed tumor Krenning scores in 115 patients with well-differentiated GEP-NETs who underwent both [111In]octreotide scintigraphy and [68Ga]DOTATOC PET. PRRT eligibility was defined according to NETTER-1 (Krenning ≥2) and NETTER-2 (Krenning ≥3) criteria. Logistic regression identified predictors of Krenning ≥3 on SSTR PET. Quantitative PET analysis was performed for patients with positive baseline [68Ga]DOTATOC PET scans. Results: Median Krenning scores were higher with SSTR PET than planar imaging (3 [IQR 3-4] vs. 2 [IQR 0-3], P<10-8). NETTER-1 eligibility increased from 59.1% with planar imaging to 81.7% with PET (P<10-3), and NETTER-2 from 48.7% to 76.5% (P<10-4). Among patients eligible on planar imaging, 95.6% (NETTER-1) and 98.2% (NETTER-2) had concordant PET findings. Conversely, 61.7% (NETTER-1) and 55.9% (NETTER-2) of patients ineligible on planar imaging were reclassified as eligible with PET. Metastatic disease was associated with higher SSTR PET uptake (OR 9.5 [95%CI 2.7-32.8], P<10-3). SUVmax discriminated patients with Krenning ≥3 using an optimal threshold of 9.2 (AUC 0.93). Conclusions: [68Ga]DOTATOC PET yields higher Krenning scores and increases PRRT eligibility compared with [111In]octreotide scintigraphy. PET may be unnecessary for clearly positive planar studies but identifies additional candidates with borderline or negative planar results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fedrigo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: