Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35715867›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2022

Post-PRRT scans: which scans to make and what to look for.

Else A Aalbersberg, Daphne M V de Vries-Huizing, Margot E T Tesselaar, Marcel P M Stokkel, Michelle W J Versleijen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. The Impact of Posttreatment Imaging in Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Else A AalbersbergDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. e.aalbersberg@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4910-3794
Daphne M V de Vries-HuizingDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1967-8148
Margot E T TesselaarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marcel P M StokkelDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Michelle W J VersleijenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Netherlands Aerospace Centre · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of SPECT/CT (imaging of uptake in tumor lesions and additional findings) and the additional value of planar imaging in order to simplify clinical imaging protocols and decrease patients burden. MATERIALS AND

methodsOne hundred consecutive patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumor (NET) treated with PRRT were included. Post-therapy imaging was performed 24 h after each PRRT cycle by both whole-body planar imaging and abdominal- and thoracic SPECT/CT. All images were evaluated for (1) the presence of new lesions, (2) discordant lesions between the two acquisitions (planar or SPECT), (3) location of lesions on SPECT (abdominal, thoracic, or both), and (4) additional findings on non-contrast enhanced CT imaging.

resultsIn total 368 PRRT cycles including post-therapy imaging were performed in 100 patients. 45 patients had abdominal disease only, whilst in 55 patients the disease was observed on both abdominal and thoracic SPECT. 16 patients had known bone lesions that were visible only on planar imaging as these were out of range of the SPECT/CT. During PRRT, one patient developed multiple new bone metastases after the second cycle of PRRT, which were visible on both planar and SPECT/CT images. In 11 patients additional findings were found on CT images, the most common and relevant being bowel obstruction, pleural effusion, and ascites. Patients who developed ascites during PRRT appeared to do extremely poor; a post-hoc analysis showed that overall survival was 13.2 months in patients that showed ascites during PRRT at any moment and 37.9 months in patients without ascites (p < 0.001).

conclusionFrom a clinical point of view, thoracoabdominal SPECT/CT imaging is the preferred method for post-PRRT imaging; planar imaging had no added value over SPECT/CT in this cohort. In patients with abdominal disease only on baseline imaging, SPECT/CT of the abdomen only might be sufficient for imaging during the PRRT course. All accompanying CT images should be reviewed for additional findings, especially ascites, which is suggested to be a poor prognostic factor in patients receiving PRRT.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsNeuroendocrine TumorsAscitesHumansOctreotideSingle Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed TomographyOctreotide[177Lu]Lu-HA-DOTATATEAscitesPlanar imagingPost-therapy imagingPRRTSPECT/CT

Identifiers

PMID35715867
PMCPMC9205039
OpenAlexW4283019375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.