NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS: CHOOSING APPROPRIATE IMAGING METHODS

  • Liliana GHEORGHE “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • Irina JARI “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • Manuela URSARU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • D. NEGRU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • Cipriana STEFANESCU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • A. NAUM “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Abstract

With an overall increased incidence in general population neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are often late diagnosed. Symptoms are nonspecific and almost 50% of all patients have regional or distant metastases at the time of diagnosis. This article provides an overview of the current state of the imaging modalities used for primary tumor visualization, staging and follow-up. Detection of NETs and patient monitoring relies mainly on anatomical imaging such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasonography (US) under certain conditions. Molecular imaging techniques in combination with CT or MRI (hybrid imaging) greatly benefit patient management, including better localization of occult tumors and better staging. Octreoscan or somatostatin receptors (SSTRs) scintigraphic imaging in combination with CT represents the standard diagnostic of NETs in most countries. However, it is rapidly surpassed by SSTRs PET/CT with 68Ga-labelled somatostatin analogues with a superior spatial resolution and faster imaging (one-stop shop principle). Other more specific tracers are 18F-L-DOPA, 11C-L-DOPA and 11C-5-hydroxytryptophan, which have demonstrated excellent results in previously published studies. Diagnosis of patients with NETs is a complex process and, it is unlikely that any single diagnostic modality to be effective. Thus, NET diagnosis is a process utilizing a variety of methods including blood, urine and tumor tissue samples in combination with anatomical or hybrid imaging for localization, delineation and staging of the disease. Diagnostic approach to patients with NETs should focus on including hybrid imaging methods, which might play an important role in the future.

Author Biographies

Liliana GHEORGHE, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgical Sciences (II)

Irina JARI, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgical Sciences (II)

Manuela URSARU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgical Sciences (II)

D. NEGRU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgical Sciences (II)

Cipriana STEFANESCU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Morpho-functional Sciences

A. NAUM, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Morpho-functional Sciences

References

1. Frilling A, Akerström G, Falconi M, Pavel M, Ramos J, Kidd M, Modlin IM. Neuroendocrine tumor disease: an evolving landscape. Endocr Relat Cancer 2012; 19(5): R163-185.
2. Lawrence B, Gustafsson BI, Chan A, Svejda B, Kidd M, Modlin IM. The epidemiology of gastroen-teropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2011; 40(1):1-18.
3. Anghel L, Arsenescu-Georgescu C. What is hiding the diabetes in the new left bundle branch block patietiens? Acta Endo, Bucureşti, 2014; 10(3): 425-433.
4. Lev I, Kelekar G, Waxman A, Yu R. Clinical use and utility of metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy in pheochromocytoma diagnosis. Endocrine Practice. 2010; 16(3): 398-407.
5. Pleşa A, Sarca E, Maxim R. Metastatic carcinoid tumor-atypical presentation. Rev. Med. Chir. Soc. Med. Nat. Iasi 2014; 118(4): 1018-1023.
6. Maxwell JE, Howe JR. Imaging in neuroendocrine tumors: an update for the clinician. International Journal 2015; 2(2): 159-168.
7. Martucci VL, Pacak K. Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: diagnosis, genetics, management, and treatment. Curr Probl Cancer 2014; 38(1): 7-41.
8. Etchebehere E, de Oliveira Santos A, Gumz B, et al. 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT, 99mTc-HYNIC-octreotide SPECT/CT, and whole-body MR imaging in detection of neuroendocrine tumors: a pro-spective trial. J Nucl Med 2014; 55: 1598-1604.
9. Mansi L, Cuccurullo V. Diagnostic imaging in neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med 2014; 55(10): 1576-1577.
10. Teunissen JJ, Kwekkeboom DJ, Valkema R, Krenning EP. Nuclear medicine techniques for the imag-ing and treatment of neuroendocrine tumours. Endocrine-related cancer 2011; 18(S1): S27-51.
11. Rufini V, Treglia G, Montravers F, Giordano A. Diagnostic accuracy of [18F] DOPA PET and PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: a meta-analysis. Clinical and Translational Imaging 2013; 1(2): 111-122.
12. Barbu S, Hutanu I, Andrén-Sandberg A, Soroceanu RP, Timofte D. Monitoring of recurrence in patients radically operated. for pancreatic cancer. Rev. Med. Chir. Soc. Med. Nat. Iasi Iaşi 2015; 119 (2): 401- 409.
13. Kabasakal L, Demirci E, Ocak M, Decristoforo C, Araman A, Ozsoy Y, Uslu I, Kanmaz B. Compari-son of 68 Ga-DOTATATE and 68 Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT imaging in the same patient group with neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Molec Imag 2012; 39(8): 1271-1277.
14. Treglia G, Castaldi P, Rindi G, Giordano A, Rufini V. Diagnostic performance of Gallium-68 soma-tostatin receptor PET and PET/CT in patients with thoracic and Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A meta-analysis. Endocrine 2012; 42: 80-87.
Published
2018-04-04
Section
INTERNAL MEDICINE - PEDIATRICS