Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26162577›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2016

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of (111)In-pentetreotide SPECT and (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT: A lesion-by-lesion analysis in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumours.

S Van Binnebeek, B Vanbilloen, K Baete, C Terwinghe, M Koole, F M Mottaghy, P M Clement, L Mortelmans, K Bogaerts, K Haustermans and 5 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The efficacy ofJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Role ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. False Positive Findings ofMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2025
    Article
  6. Unveiling the potential of copper-61 vs. gallium-68 for SSTR PET imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  7. Small cell lung cancer and neuroendocrine tumours.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024
    Review
  8. Head-to-head comparison between [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A Systematic Review on Combined [Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Intra-individual qualitative and quantitative comparison of [Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Value of [EJNMMI research · 2022
    Article
  19. Observational
  20. Role of CombinedDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

S Van BinnebeekNuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven and Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
B VanbilloenNuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven and Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
K BaeteNuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven and Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
C TerwingheNuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven and Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
M KooleNuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven and Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
F M MottaghyDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
P M ClementMedical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven and Laboratory of Experimental Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
L MortelmansNuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven and Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
K BogaertsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care (I-BioStat), KU Leuven and UHasselt, Leuven, Belgium.
K HaustermansRadiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven and Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
K NackaertsPulmonology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
E Van CutsemDivision of Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven and Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
C VerslypeDivision of Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven and Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
A VerbruggenLaboratory for Radiopharmacy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
C M DerooseNuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven and Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. christophe.deroose@uzleuven.be.
KU Leuven · BEHasselt University · BEMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of (111)In-pentetreotide-scintigraphy with (68)Ga-DOTATOC-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in patients with metastatic-neuroendocrine tumour (NET) scheduled for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). Incremental lesions (ILs) were defined as lesions observed on only one modality.

methodsFifty-three metastatic-NET-patients underwent (111)In-pentetreotide-scintigraphy (24 h post-injection; planar+single-photon emission CT (SPECT) abdomen) and whole-body (68)Ga-DOTATOC-PET/CT. SPECT and PET were compared in a lesion-by-lesion and organ-by-organ analysis, determining the total lesions and ILs for both modalities.

resultsSignificantly more lesions were detected on (68)Ga-DOTATOC-PET/CT versus (111)In-pentetreotide-scintigraphy. More specifically, we observed 1,098 lesions on PET/CT (range: 1-105; median: 15) versus 660 on SPECT (range: 0-73, median: 9) (p<0.0001), with 439 PET-ILs (42/53 patients) and one SPECT-IL (1/53 patients). The sensitivity for PET/CT was 99.9 % (95 % CI, 99.3-100.0), for SPECT 60.0 % (95 % CI, 48.5-70.2). The organ-by-organ analysis showed that the PET-ILs were most frequently visualized in liver and skeleton.

conclusionGa-DOTATOC-PET/CT is superior for the detection of NET-metastases compared to (111)In-pentetreotide SPECT. KEY POINTS: Somatostatin receptor PET is superior to SPECT in detecting NET metastases. PET is the scintigraphic method for accurate depiction of NET tumour burden. The sensitivity of PET is twofold higher than the sensitivity of SPECT.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBone NeoplasmsFemaleGallium RadioisotopesHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeuroendocrine TumorsOctreotidePositron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsSomatostatinTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonEdotreotideGallium RadioisotopesOctreotidepentetreotideRadiopharmaceuticalsSomatostatin111In-pentetreotide68Ga-DOTATOCNeuroendocrine tumourPRRTSPECT

Identifiers

PMID26162577
OpenAlexW1033043842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.