The influence of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy during preoperative staging of non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Issue 6 (June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jilesen, A.P.J.; Hoefnagel, S.J.M.; Busch, O.R.C.; Bennink, R.J.; Gouma, D.J.; Nieveen van Dijkum, E.J.M.
• Is Part Of: Clinical radiology. Volume 71:Issue 6(2016)
• Page Start: 537
• Page End: 542
• Publication Date: 2016-06
• Subjects: Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Societies, Medical -- Periodicals; Medical radiology; Radiotherapy; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.01.015
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0009-9260

Abstract

Abstract : Aim: To determine whether somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) influences the preoperative staging and clinical management of non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NF-pNETs). Materials and methods: All SRS examinations performed between 2002–2013 were selected. Patients with NF-pNET were included if both computed tomography (CT) and SRS was performed during preoperative staging. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and SRS for detecting NF-pNET metastases was analysed. Altered TNM classification and changed clinical management were calculated. Changed management was defined as a change from surgical resection into systemic treatment or vice versa. NF-pNETs were defined as tumours without clinical symptoms of hormonal hypersecretion. Results: Overall, 62 patients with NF-pNET were included with a mean age of 57 years (SD: 12.4) 2 . In 28 patients (45%), CT and SRS were correct and in agreement in the detection of primary tumour/metastases. In 34 patients (55%), one of the techniques was incorrect and therefore, there was no agreement. SRS altered the TNM classification in 14 patients (23%) and clinical management in nine patients (15%). In patients without metastases on CT, SRS detected lymph node metastases in one patient. The sensitivity to detect the primary tumour with CT was 95% and with SRS was 73%. In detecting metastases, the sensitivity and specificity were both 85% for CT versus 80% and 90% for SRS. Conclusion: Overall, CT and SRS were in agreement in the detection of NF-pNET. In NF-pNET without suspicious metastatic lesions on CT, SRS has limited value. SRS may be indicated to confirm lesions suspicious for neuroendocrine tumours metastases. Highlights: In 28 patients (45%), CT and SRS were correct and in agreement in the detection of primary tumor/metastases. In 34 patients (55%) one of the modalities was incorrect and therefore, there was no agreement. Sensitivity to detect the primary tumor with CT and SRS were 95% versus 73%. SRS altered the TNM classification in 14 patients (23%) and clinical management in 9 patients (15%).