Search

This study aimed to compare the detection of neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases (NLMs) in hepatobiliary-specific contrast-enhanced MRI (pMR) versus 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT (DT-PET). This retrospective study cohort included 30 patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors who underwent both DT-PET and pMR. Two readers independently assessed NLMs count, SUVmax on DT-PET, and signal characteristics on pMR. A consensus review by two additional readers resolved discrepancies between the modalities. Results showed concordance between DT-PET and pMR NLM count in 14/30 patients (47%). pMR identified more NLMs in 12/30 patients (40%), of which 4 patients showed multiple deposits on pMR but only 0–1 lesions on DT-PET. DT-PET detected more in 4/30 patients (13%). Overall, pMR detected more metastases than DT-PET (p = 0.01). Excluding the four outliers, there was excellent agreement between the two methods (ICC: 0.945, 95%CI: 0.930, 0.958). Notably, pMR had a higher NLM detection rate than DT-PET, with correlations found between lesion size on pMR and DT-PET detectability, as well as diffusion restriction on pMR and SUVmax on DT-PET. In conclusion, in consecutive patients with well-differentiated NETs, the detection rate of NLM is higher with pMR than with DT-PET. However, when excluding patients whose tumors do not overexpress somatostatin receptors (13% of the cohort), high concordance in the detection of NLM is observed between DT PET and pMR.

Purpose: To describe the initial experience of an academic center using 18F-DCFPyL PET in managing men with recurrent prostate cancer. Materials & Methods: This prospective, single-arm IRB-approved study included men with biochemical failure after primary therapy for prostate cancer and negative/equivocal CT and bone scintigraphy who were candidates for salvage therapy, as determined by a multidisciplinary panel of experts. 18F-DCFPyL PET was assessed for the presence and extent of recurrence: local, oligometastatic (≤4), or extensive. Post-PET management and clinical outcome, including PSA response, was documented. For patients who received PET-directed ablative therapies, response was categorized as “complete” if PSA became undetectable or “favorable” if PSA decreased ≥50%. Results: Forty-seven men with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy (n = 29), primary radiotherapy (n = 15) or focal tumor ablation (n = 3) were included. PET was positive in (43/47) 91.5%, including local recurrence in (9/47) 19.2%; oligometastatic disease in (16/47) 34%; and extensive metastatic disease in (18/47) 38.3%. PET-directed focal ablative therapies without systemic therapy were given to (13/29) 44.8% of patients without extensive metastases on PET with a mean PSA response of 69% (median, 74.5%; range: 35–100). Favorable biochemical response was observed in (10/13) 76.9% of patients with limited recurrence on PET, and in 23.1% (3/13), there was complete response. Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL PET was positive in >90% of patients with biochemical failure. For those with limited recurrence, PSMA PET-directed local ablative therapies resulted in favorable outcome in more than 3 in 4 patients, and in nearly a quarter of them, there was complete biochemical response.