Comparison of [111In]octreotide Scintigraphy and [68Ga]DOTATOC PET in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Concordance of Krenning Scores and Implications for Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy Eligibility.
Roberto Fedrigo, Sara Harsini, Luke Murtha, Joao Paulo Solar Vasconcelos, Carlos Uribe, Don Wilson, Francois Benard, Ian Alberts, Patrick Martineau, Jonathan M Loree
{"title":"Comparison of [<sup>111</sup>In]octreotide Scintigraphy and [<sup>68</sup>Ga]DOTATOC PET in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Concordance of Krenning Scores and Implications for Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy Eligibility.","authors":"Roberto Fedrigo, Sara Harsini, Luke Murtha, Joao Paulo Solar Vasconcelos, Carlos Uribe, Don Wilson, Francois Benard, Ian Alberts, Patrick Martineau, Jonathan M Loree","doi":"10.1159/000552968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an established treatment for somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs), with eligibility determined by the Krenning score. While SSTR PET provides greater sensitivity than octreotide scintigraphy, its impact on PRRT eligibility remains unclear. We compared Krenning scores between [111In]octreotide scintigraphy and [68Ga]DOTATOC PET and assessed eligibility under NETTER-1 and NETTER-2 criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively assessed tumor Krenning scores in 115 patients with well-differentiated GEP-NETs who underwent both [111In]octreotide scintigraphy and [68Ga]DOTATOC PET. PRRT eligibility was defined according to NETTER-1 (Krenning ≥2) and NETTER-2 (Krenning ≥3) criteria. Logistic regression identified predictors of Krenning ≥3 on SSTR PET. Quantitative PET analysis was performed for patients with positive baseline [68Ga]DOTATOC PET scans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median Krenning scores were higher with SSTR PET than planar imaging (3 [IQR 3-4] vs. 2 [IQR 0-3], p < 10-8). NETTER-1 eligibility increased from 59.1% with planar imaging to 81.7% with PET (p < 10-3), and NETTER-2 from 48.7% to 76.5% (p < 10-4). Among patients eligible on planar imaging, 95.6% (NETTER-1) and 98.2% (NETTER-2) had concordant PET findings. Conversely, 61.7% (NETTER-1) and 55.9% (NETTER-2) of patients ineligible on planar imaging were reclassified as eligible with PET. Metastatic disease was associated with higher SSTR PET uptake (odds ratio 9.5 [95% confidence interval: 2.7-32.8], p < 10-3). SUV<sub>max</sub> discriminated patients with Krenning ≥3 using an optimal threshold of 9.2 (AUC 0.93).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>[68Ga]DOTATOC PET yields higher Krenning scores and increases PRRT eligibility compared with [111In]octreotide scintigraphy. PET may be unnecessary for clearly positive planar studies but identifies additional candidates with borderline or negative planar results.</p>","PeriodicalId":19117,"journal":{"name":"Neuroendocrinology","volume":" ","pages":"299-306"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroendocrinology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000552968","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an established treatment for somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs), with eligibility determined by the Krenning score. While SSTR PET provides greater sensitivity than octreotide scintigraphy, its impact on PRRT eligibility remains unclear. We compared Krenning scores between [111In]octreotide scintigraphy and [68Ga]DOTATOC PET and assessed eligibility under NETTER-1 and NETTER-2 criteria.
Methods: We retrospectively assessed tumor Krenning scores in 115 patients with well-differentiated GEP-NETs who underwent both [111In]octreotide scintigraphy and [68Ga]DOTATOC PET. PRRT eligibility was defined according to NETTER-1 (Krenning ≥2) and NETTER-2 (Krenning ≥3) criteria. Logistic regression identified predictors of Krenning ≥3 on SSTR PET. Quantitative PET analysis was performed for patients with positive baseline [68Ga]DOTATOC PET scans.
Results: Median Krenning scores were higher with SSTR PET than planar imaging (3 [IQR 3-4] vs. 2 [IQR 0-3], p < 10-8). NETTER-1 eligibility increased from 59.1% with planar imaging to 81.7% with PET (p < 10-3), and NETTER-2 from 48.7% to 76.5% (p < 10-4). Among patients eligible on planar imaging, 95.6% (NETTER-1) and 98.2% (NETTER-2) had concordant PET findings. Conversely, 61.7% (NETTER-1) and 55.9% (NETTER-2) of patients ineligible on planar imaging were reclassified as eligible with PET. Metastatic disease was associated with higher SSTR PET uptake (odds ratio 9.5 [95% confidence interval: 2.7-32.8], p < 10-3). SUVmax discriminated patients with Krenning ≥3 using an optimal threshold of 9.2 (AUC 0.93).
Conclusions: [68Ga]DOTATOC PET yields higher Krenning scores and increases PRRT eligibility compared with [111In]octreotide scintigraphy. PET may be unnecessary for clearly positive planar studies but identifies additional candidates with borderline or negative planar results.
期刊介绍:
''Neuroendocrinology'' publishes papers reporting original research in basic and clinical neuroendocrinology. The journal explores the complex interactions between neuronal networks and endocrine glands (in some instances also immunecells) in both central and peripheral nervous systems. Original contributions cover all aspects of the field, from molecular and cellular neuroendocrinology, physiology, pharmacology, and the neuroanatomy of neuroendocrine systems to neuroendocrine correlates of behaviour, clinical neuroendocrinology and neuroendocrine cancers. Readers also benefit from reviews by noted experts, which highlight especially active areas of current research, and special focus editions of topical interest.