{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.07207920792079207, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04673267326732673, 'mean_word_length': 4.929577464788732, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An intrapatient comparison of 99mTc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC with 111In-DTPA-octreotide for diagnosis of somatostatin receptor-expressing tumors.

UNLABELLED
The aim of this study was to compare the imaging abilities of the recently developed somatostatin analog, (99m)Tc-hydrazinonicotinyl-Tyr(3)-octreotide ((99m)Tc-HYNIC-TOC [(99m)Tc-TOC]), with (111)In-diethylenediaminepentaacetic acid-D-Phe(1)-octreotide ((111)In-OCT [Octreoscan]) in patients undergoing routine somatostatin receptor (SSTR) scintigraphy.


METHODS
Forty-one patients (20 men, 21 women; age range, 29-75 y; mean age, 56.7 y) with either histologically proven or biologically and clinically suspected endocrine tumors were enrolled in the study. Four groups were distinguished: (a) patients being evaluated for the detection and localization of neuroendocrine tumors (n = 6), (b) tumor staging (n = 19), (c) patients being investigated to determine the SSTR status of tumor lesions (n = 11), and (d) patient follow-up studies (n = 5). Each patient received a mean activity of 150 MBq (111)In-OCT and 350-400 MBq (99m)Tc-TOC. Scintigraphy with (99m)Tc-TOC was performed 4 h after injection and scintigraphy with (111)In-OCT was performed 4 and 24 h after injection. SPECT studies of areas of interest were performed 4 h after injection for both tracers as well as at 24 h after injection for (111)In-OCT. The time interval between the studies using each tracer ranged from 2 to 22 d (mean interval, 9.3 d).


RESULTS
(111)In-OCT and (99m)Tc-TOC showed an equivalent scan result in 32 patients (78%), 9 cases showed discrepancies (22%), false-negative results with (111)In-OCT were seen in 6 cases (14.6%), whereas (99m)Tc-TOC was false-positive in 2 cases (4.9%). (111)In-OCT was true-negative in both cases. The false-positive findings of the (99m)Tc-TOC studies were caused by nonspecific uptake in the bowel. In 1 case, (99m)Tc-TOC correctly identified a metastasis in the lumbar spine but both scan results were false-positive because of an inflammatory process. In 21 patients with SSTR-expressing tumors, the semiquantitative region-of-interest analysis showed that (99m)Tc-TOC achieved higher tumor-to-normal tissue ratios than (111)In-OCT.


CONCLUSION
This study revealed a higher sensitivity of (99m)Tc-TOC as compared with (111)In-OCT as an imaging agent for the localization of SSTR-expressing tumors. To avoid false-positive findings with (99m)Tc-OCT due to nonspecific tracer accumulation, additional scanning at 1-2 h after injection should be done.