Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportClinical PET

Clinical Workflow Differences in Ga-68 Dotatate vs Cu-64 Dotatate

Kristen Smith, Shelley Acuff and Dustin Osborne
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 4094;
Kristen Smith
1University of Tennessee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shelley Acuff
2UT Medical Center
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dustin Osborne
3University of Tennessee: Graduate School of Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

4094

Introduction: Ga-68 DOTATATE and Cu-64 DOTATATE are both positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracers used for imaging somatostatin receptor positive neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). The University of Tennessee Medical Center has been scanning with Ga-68 DOTATATE (NETSPOT) since 2017 and as of August 2021, the hospital switched to Cu-64 DOTATATE (Detectnet). These tracers will be referred to as Ga-68 and Cu-64 for the remainder of the abstract. The objective of this abstract is to compare the differences between Ga-68 and Cu-64 from a clinical workflow perspective.

Methods: Approximately 15 patients were observed that had both a Ga-68 and a Cu-64 scan. Each tracer was assessed to determine the differences in scheduling the exams, patient preparation, side effects, dose injection, and imaging guidelines. Image quality was not taken into consideration because our facility switched to a new PET/CT scanner when Cu-64 was introduced and image quality discussions have been sufficiently discussed in the literature.

Results: Scheduling

Before scheduling a Ga-68 or Cu-64 scan, verify the patient has been off long-acting somatostatin analogs for 28 days prior to imaging and short acting somatostatin analogs for 24 hours.

Patient Preparation

Patient preparation is the same for both tracers. Patients should be well hydrated and void frequently after the scan to reduce radiation dose to the kidneys and bladder. Patients must be off long-acting somatostatin analogs for 28 days prior to imaging and short acting somatostatin for 24 hours.

Side Effects

The only side effect observed when using Ga-68 was that several patients reported stinging at the injection site during injection. Some patients that were injected with Cu-64 began feeling nauseous within 5 minutes post injection. No other side effects were observed and all discomfort was transient.

Dose Injection Guidelines

Ga-68- 5.4mCi administered as intravenous bolus injection followed by saline flush

Cu-64- 4mCi administered as intravenous injection over 1 minute followed by saline flush

If necessary, volume can be adjusted by adding saline.

Imaging Guidelines

Both exams are scanned at 60 minutes post injection. Scan times are approximately 25 minutes for both Ga-68 and Cu-64. Cu-64 can be imaged between 45-90 minutes post injection.

Conclusions: The greatest difference in Ga-68 and Cu-64 from our facility is related to scheduling challenges. Ga-68 was more difficult to fit into the schedule because of the limitation in number of doses and specific calibration times. This is common with gallium tracers due to the limited output from gallium generators. However, Cu-64 was more difficult to cancel since it requires a 48-hour notice for cancellation, instead of 24 hours for Ga-68. The workflow after injection was not changed since both tracers were scanned at 60 minutes post injection. From a patient perspective, the length of the scan was the same and the only noticeable practice difference has been that we consistently observe patients feeling nauseous for approximately 5 minutes after the injection of Cu-64.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 63, Issue supplement 2
August 1, 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical Workflow Differences in Ga-68 Dotatate vs Cu-64 Dotatate
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Clinical Workflow Differences in Ga-68 Dotatate vs Cu-64 Dotatate
Kristen Smith, Shelley Acuff, Dustin Osborne
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 4094;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Clinical Workflow Differences in Ga-68 Dotatate vs Cu-64 Dotatate
Kristen Smith, Shelley Acuff, Dustin Osborne
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 4094;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Dose Optimization in PET/CT: Minimizing F-18 FDG Dose for Improved Safety, Efficiency, and Efficacy
  • Dynamic 18F-Fluorothymidine PET imaging of metastatic lesions post-radiotherapy to differentiate tumour progression from radionecrosis
  • Title Non-prostate diseases seen on PSMA PET imaging.
Show more Clinical PET

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire