Clinical impact of using [18F]AlF‐NOTA‐octreotide PET/CT instead of [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐SSA PET/CT: Secondary endpoint analysis of a multicenter, prospective trial

• Published in: Journal of neuroendocrinology 2024-08, Vol.36 (8), p.e13420-n/a
• Main Authors: Leupe, Hannes, Pauwels, Elin, Vandamme, Timon, Van den Broeck, Bliede, Lybaert, Willem, Dekervel, Jeroen, Van Herpe, Filip, Jaekers, Joris, Cleeren, Frederik, Hofland, Johannes, Brouwers, Adrienne, Koole, Michel, Bormans, Guy, Van Cutsem, Eric, Geboes, Karen, Laenen, Annouschka, Verslype, Chris, Stroobants, Sigrid, Deroose, Christophe M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: [18F]AlF‐NOTA‐octreotide; [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐TATE; Adult; Aged; clinical management; Computed tomography; Female; Gallium Radioisotopes; Humans; Male; Management; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging - methods; neuroendocrine tumor; Neuroendocrine tumors; Neuroendocrine Tumors - diagnostic imaging; Neuroendocrine Tumors - pathology; Octreotide; Octreotide - analogs & derivatives; Organometallic Compounds; Patients; Positron emission tomography; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - methods; Prospective Studies; Radiopharmaceuticals; Somatostatin; Somatostatin - analogs & derivatives; somatostatin receptor; Tracers
• ISSN: 0953-8194; 1365-2826
• DOI: 10.1111/jne.13420

[18F]AlF‐NOTA‐octreotide ([18F]AlF‐OC) is a promising alternative for [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐somatostatin analogs (SSAs) in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of the somatostatin receptor (SSTR). Our aim is to assess changes in TNM staging and differences in patient management between [18F]AlF‐OC PET/CT and [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐SSA PET/CT in the work‐up of neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients. Patients who underwent both [18F]AlF‐OC and [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐TATE or [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐NOC PET/CT in our multicenter study (Pauwels et al., J Nucl Med.2023;63:632–638) with a NET were included for analysis. TNM staging was determined and compared for both tracers. For each patient, the blinded [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐SSA or [18F]AlF‐OC PET/CT images were presented in random order at a multidisciplinary team board. The images were presented together with clinical information and compared with previous SSTR and [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging. After a consensus decision for patient management was recorded, the board was presented with the PET/CT images from the other SSTR tracer and a decision was made for the second tracer. Differences in management were classified as major if it entailed an intermodality change and minor if it led to an intramodality change. Compared with [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐SSA, the use of [18F]AlF‐OC led to a change in 16/75 patients: TNM staging changes in 10/75 patients (13.3%; downstaging in 3/10, upstaging in 7/10) and differences in clinical management were seen in 10/75 patients (13.3%), leading to a major difference in 7/10 cases and a minor change in 3/10 cases. All 10 cases with a difference in patient management between both PET tracers were caused by additional lesion detection by [18F]AlF‐OC. The use of [18F]AlF‐OC did not impact TNM staging or clinical management in the large majority of the patients (86.7%), further validating the potential for routine clinical use of [18F]AlF‐OC PET/CT as an alternative for [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐SSA PET/CT. The trial is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04552847 and EudraCT 2020–000549‐15. All cases with a difference in patient management between both PET tracers were caused by additional lesion detection by [18F]AlF‐OC. The use of [18F]AlF‐OC did not impact TNM staging or clinical management in the large majority of the patients (86.7%), further validating the potential for routine clinical use of [18F]AlF‐OC PET/CT instead of [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐SSA PET/CT.