% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Herr:300156,
author = {F. L. Herr and C. Dascalescu and M. P. Fabritius and G. T.
Sheikh and M. J. Zacherl and V. Wenter and L. M. Unterrainer
and M. Brendel$^*$ and A. Holzgreve and C. J. Auernhammer
and C. Spitzweg and T. Burkard and J. Ricke and M. M. Heimer
and C. C. Cyran},
title = {{PET}- and {CT}-{B}ased {I}maging {C}riteria for {R}esponse
{A}ssessment of {G}astroenteropancreatic {N}euroendocrine
{T}umors {U}nder {R}adiopharmaceutical {T}herapy.},
journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine},
volume = {66},
number = {5},
issn = {0097-9058},
address = {New York, NY},
publisher = {Soc.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-00642},
pages = {726-731},
year = {2025},
note = {2025 May 1;66(5):726-731},
abstract = {Despite well-documented limitations, current guidelines
recommend the use of size-based RECIST 1.1 for response
assessment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors
(GEP-NETs) under radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT). We
hypothesize that functional criteria are superior to RECIST
1.1 for response assessment and progression-free survival
(PFS) prediction, and molecular scores can be used in
prognosticating PFS. Methods: This single-center,
retrospective study included 178 patients with GEP-NETs (G1
and G2) who were treated with at least 2 consecutive cycles
of RPT with [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE and who underwent
somatostatin receptor PET/CT at baseline and after 2 cycles
of RPT (follow-up). PFS was defined as the time between
baseline and clinical progression, as reported by a GEP-NET
multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) assessment or reported
death. The differences in categorization and PFS between
RECIST 1.1, Choi (functional criteria), and the MDT were
evaluated, and 3-y PFS with MDT defined PFS as the
reference. The predictive values of the different scores in
somatostatin receptor standardized reporting and data system
and Krenning (molecular scores) for PFS were analyzed.
Results: Choi criteria classified a higher number of
patients as having progressive disease and partial response
and a lower number of patients as having stable disease
compared with RECIST 1.1 (P < 0.01). The PFS of patients
with progressive disease according to RECIST 1.1 and Choi
criteria was shorter than that of patients with stable
disease and partial response (P < 0.05). Choi criteria
showed a nonsignificantly higher concordance with the MDT
than with RECIST 1.1. There was a shift in category from a
Krenning score of 4 to a score of 3 between baseline and
follow-up (P < 0.01). At baseline, a Krenning score of 3 was
associated with a shorter median PFS compared with a score
of 4 (P < 0.05). Conclusion: In addition to RECIST 1.1,
further PET- and CT-based imaging criteria have the
potential to assess response and predict PFS in patients
with GEP-NETs undergoing RPT. Our data support the
assumption to use Choi criteria for prediction of PFS and
agreement in response assessment. At baseline, the Krenning
score can be used to predict therapy response after 2 cycles
of RPT.},
keywords = {GEP-NET (Other) / RPT (Other) / SSTR PET/CT (Other) / human
studies (Other) / response criteria (Other)},
cin = {MU01},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)MU01-20160331},
pnm = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:40147845},
doi = {10.2967/jnumed.124.268621},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/300156},
}