Octreotide scintigraphy versus DOTATOC PET: Concordance of Krenning scores and implications on PRRT treatment eligibility.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
e16339 Background: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an established treatment for patients with somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs). Treatment eligibility uses the Krenning score. SSTR PET improves sensitivity compared to planar octreotide scintigraphy, but has reduced availability in clinical practice. We compared Krenning scores obtained with planar octreotide scans and SSTR PET for well-differentiated NETs and assessed changes in PRRT eligibility based on criteria from NETTER-1 and NETTER-2. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 171 patients with well-differentiated GEP-NETs. Patients were imaged using In-111 octreotide scintigraphy and Ga-68 DOTATOC PET. Tumour uptake was graded using the Krenning score. Additional features such as primary tumour site, tumour grade, metastatic status, and FDG PET status were recorded. Wilcoxon’s signed rank test was used to compare Krenning scores for each imaging modality, and chi-squared was used to compare between groups. Logistic regression was used to identify correlations between each feature and SSTR PET-based Krenning score. Results: Krenning score was significantly higher for SSTR PET (2.92 ± 1.37) than planar imaging (1.94 ± 1.67) ( P < 10 -12 ). The percentage of patients eligible for PRRT based on NETTER-1 criteria (i.e., Krenning 2-4) was 58.5% and 83.0% with planar imaging and SSTR PET, respectively ( P < 10 -6 ). Meanwhile, the percentage of patients eligible based on NETTER-2 (Krenning score 3-4) was 49.7% and 78.4% with planar imaging and SSTR PET, respectively ( P < 10 -8 ). In patients that met eligibility criteria with planar imaging, 96.0% and 96.5% had concordant findings with SSTR PET (Krenning score 2-4 and 3-4, respectively). However, 60.5% and 64.8% of patients that did not meet criteria for PRRT with planar imaging (i.e., Krenning score 0-1 and 0-2, respectively) were eligible based on SSTR PET. Baseline metastatic disease status was significantly correlated with having Krenning score 3-4 on SSTR PET imaging (OR = 7.5 [2.9-19.5], P < 10 -5 ). For patients classified as Krenning 0-2 with planar imaging, those with metastatic disease were more likely to have discordant findings with SSTR PET (78.0% metastatic vs. 36.1% non-metastatic, P < 10 -4 ). Primary disease site, tumour grade, and FDG PET disease status did not correlate with SSTR PET Krenning score. Conclusions: SSTR PET results in higher Krenning scores than planar scintigraphy, which may impact the eligibility for PRRT, as defined by the NETTER-2 trial. SSTR PET may not be needed to confirm PRRT eligibility for patients with Krenning score 3-4 on In-111 octreotide scintigraphy. Caution is advised when extrapolating the results of one modality to another.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».