+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      177Lu-DOTATATE Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy: Dose Response in Small Intestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Introduction: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) has during the last few years been frequently used in patients with progressive, disseminating, well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Objective: To study whether the absorbed dose in small intestinal NET (SI-NET) metastases from PRRT with <sup>177</sup>Lu-DOTATATE is related to tumor shrinkage. Materials and Methods: Dosimetry for 1 tumor was performed in each of 25 SI-NET patients based on sequential SPECT/CT 1, 4, and 7 days after <sup>177</sup>Lu-DOTATATE infusion. The SPECT data were corrected for the partial volume effect based on previous phantom measurements, and the unit density sphere model from OLINDA was used for absorbed dose calculations. Morphological therapy response was assessed by CT/MRI regarding tumor diameter, tumor volume, total liver tumor volume, liver volume, and overall tumor response according to RECIST 1.1. Plasma chromogranin A and urinary 5-hydroxy-indole-acetic-acid were measured during PRRT and follow-up to assess biochemical response. Results: At the time of best response with respect to tumor diameter and volume shrinkage, the median absorbed dose was 128.6 Gy (range 28.4–326.9) and 140 Gy (range 50.9–487.4), respectively. All metrics regarding tumor shrinkage and biochemical response were unrelated to the absorbed dose. A correlation was, however, found between the administered radioactivity and the tumor volume shrinkage ( p = 0.01) and between the administered radioactivity and RECIST 1.1 response ( p = 0.01). Conclusions: It was not possible to demonstrate a tumor dose-response relationship in SI-NET metastases with the applied dosimetry method, contrary to what was previously shown for pancreatic NETs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Treatment with the radiolabeled somatostatin analog [177 Lu-DOTA 0,Tyr3]octreotate: toxicity, efficacy, and survival.

          Despite the fact that most gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEPNETs) are slow-growing, median overall survival (OS) in patients with liver metastases is 2 to 4 years. In metastatic disease, cytoreductive therapeutic options are limited. A relatively new therapy is peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with the radiolabeled somatostatin analog [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate. Here we report on the toxicity and efficacy of this treatment, performed in over 500 patients. Patients were treated up to a cumulative dose of 750 to 800 mCi (27.8-29.6 GBq), usually in four treatment cycles, with treatment intervals of 6 to 10 weeks. Toxicity analysis was done in 504 patients, and efficacy analysis in 310 patients. Any hematologic toxicity grade 3 or 4 occurred after 3.6% of administrations. Serious adverse events that were likely attributable to the treatment were myelodysplastic syndrome in three patients, and temporary, nonfatal, liver toxicity in two patients. Complete and partial tumor remissions occurred in 2% and 28% of 310 GEPNET patients, respectively. Minor tumor response (decrease in size > 25% and < 50%) occurred in 16%. Median time to progression was 40 months. Median OS from start of treatment was 46 months, median OS from diagnosis was 128 months. Compared with historical controls, there was a survival benefit of 40 to 72 months from diagnosis. Treatment with [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate has few adverse effects. Tumor response rates and progression-free survival compare favorably to the limited number of alternative treatment modalities. Compared with historical controls, there is a benefit in OS from time of diagnosis of several years.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials.

            Several studies have shown the usefulness of positron emission tomography (PET) quantification using standardised uptake values (SUV) for diagnosis and staging, prognosis and response monitoring. Many factors affect SUV, such as patient preparation procedures, scan acquisition, image reconstruction and data analysis settings, and the variability in methodology across centres prohibits exchange of SUV data. Therefore, standardisation of 2-[(18)F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET whole body procedures is required in multi-centre trials. A protocol for standardisation of quantitative FDG whole body PET studies in the Netherlands (NL) was defined. This protocol is based on standardisation of: (1) patient preparation; (2) matching of scan statistics by prescribing dosage as function of patient weight, scan time per bed position, percentage of bed overlap and image acquisition mode (2D or 3D); (3) matching of image resolution by prescribing reconstruction settings for each type of scanner; (4) matching of data analysis procedure by defining volume of interest methods and SUV calculations and; (5) finally, a multi-centre QC procedure is defined using a 20-cm diameter phantom for verification of scanner calibration and the NEMA NU 2 2001 Image Quality phantom for verification of activity concentration recoveries (i.e., verification of image resolution and reconstruction convergence). This paper describes a protocol for standardization of quantitative FDG whole body multi-centre PET studies. The protocol was successfully implemented in the Netherlands and has been approved by the Netherlands Society of Nuclear Medicine.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Prospective, Randomized Study on the Effect of Octreotide LAR in the Control of Tumor Growth in Patients with Metastatic Neuroendocrine Midgut Tumors (PROMID): Results of Long-Term Survival

              Background: Somatostatin analogs have been shown to control the growth of well-differentiated metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. Their effect on overall survival is a matter of debate. We analyzed the prognostic significance of early treatment with octreotide LAR and of hepatic tumor load in the PROMID trial cohort. Patients and Methods: Between 2001 and 2008, 85 treatment-naïve patients were randomly assigned to monthly octreotide LAR 30 mg or placebo until tumor progression or death. Post-study treatment was at the discretion of the investigator. Upon disease progression, 38 out of 43 placebo patients (88.4%) received octreotide LAR. For survival, patients were followed until May 2014. Results: Forty-eight out of 85 patients (56.5%) died. In 38 patients (79.2%), death was tumor related. The median overall survival (84.7 and 83.7 months) was only slightly different in patients assigned to octreotide and placebo [HR = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.47-1.46); p = 0.51]. The median overall survival was 84.7 months for all 85 patients, 107.6 months in the low-tumor-load (n = 64) and 57.5 months in the high-tumor-load (n = 21) subgroups [HR = 2.49 (95% CI: 1.36-4.55); p = 0.002]. There was a trend towards improved overall survival in patients with a low hepatic tumor load receiving octreotide compared to placebo [‘median not reached' and 87.2 months; HR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.29-1.2); p = 0.142]. Conclusion: The extent of tumor burden is a predictor for shorter survival. Overall survival was similar in patients receiving octreotide LAR or placebo treatment at randomization. Crossover of the majority of placebo patients to octreotide LAR may have confounded the data on overall survival.

                Author and article information

                S. Karger AG
                July 2020
                10 October 2019
                : 110
                : 7-8
                : 662-670
                aDepartment of Surgical Sciences/Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                bMedical Physics, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
                cDepartment for Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                dRadiology and Nuclear Medicine, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
                eDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
                Author notes
                *Ulrika Jahn, Department of Surgical Sciences/Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Uppsala University, SE–75185 Uppsala (Sweden), E-Mail ulrika.jahn@radiol.uu.se
                504001 Neuroendocrinology 2020;110:662–670
                © 2019 © 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 9
                Research Article


                Comment on this article