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
Research ArticleClinical Investigation

Factors Associated with Myocardial Uptake on Oncologic Somatostatin PET Investigations and Differentiation from Myocardial Uptake of Acute Myocarditis

Thomas Larive, Caroline Boursier, Marine Claudin, Jeanne Varlot, Laura Filippetti, Olivier Huttin, Véronique Roch, Laetitia Imbert, Matthieu Doyen, Aurélien Lambert, Damien Mandry, Zohra Lamiral, Elodie Chevalier and Pierre-Yves Marie
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2024, 65 (8) 1279-1285; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.123.267219
Thomas Larive
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
2Nancyclotep Imaging Platform, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Caroline Boursier
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
2Nancyclotep Imaging Platform, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
3UMR 1254, INSERM, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marine Claudin
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
2Nancyclotep Imaging Platform, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeanne Varlot
4Department of Cardiology, CHRU Nancy, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Filippetti
4Department of Cardiology, CHRU Nancy, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olivier Huttin
4Department of Cardiology, CHRU Nancy, Nancy, France;
5UMR 1116, INSERM, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Véronique Roch
2Nancyclotep Imaging Platform, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laetitia Imbert
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
2Nancyclotep Imaging Platform, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
3UMR 1254, INSERM, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthieu Doyen
3UMR 1254, INSERM, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
6Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aurélien Lambert
7Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Damien Mandry
3UMR 1254, INSERM, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
8Department of Radiology, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zohra Lamiral
9CIC 1433, INSERM, CHRU Nancy, Nancy, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elodie Chevalier
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
2Nancyclotep Imaging Platform, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pierre-Yves Marie
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
2Nancyclotep Imaging Platform, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
3UMR 1254, INSERM, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    (A) Spearman correlation coefficients for associations between tissue characterization parameters provided by PET (myocardial-to-blood SUVmax ratio and myocardial uptake volume) or MRI (T1, T2, and number of late gadolinium enhancement [LGE] LV segments) and all considered PET and MRI variables. (B) Relationship between LV ejection fraction and myocardial-to-blood SUVmax ratio. (C) Relationship between LV ejection fraction and myocardial uptake volume.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    (A–C) Comparison of myocardial uptake in AM-PET and Onc-PET groups in terms of myocardial uptake volume (A), myocardial-to-blood SUVmax ratio (B), and myocardial uptake detection rate on each of 17 LV segments (C). Difference in uptake detection rates between AM-PET and Onc-PET groups is particularly marked (P < 0.001) in inferior and inferior-lateral segments (columns delimited with dashed red lines) and weaker (P = ∼0.05) in anterior and anterior-septal segments located in basal and median parts of LV (columns delimited with dashed blue lines).

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Receiver operating characteristic curves optimized to differentiate AM-PET group from Onc-PET group on basis of myocardial-to-blood SUVmax ratio and myocardial uptake volume. According to closest-to-(0,1) corner approach, we selected thresholds of 2.2 for myocardial-to-blood SUVmax ratio and 18 cm3 for myocardial uptake volume (arrows).

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    Representative fused PET/CT slices, on 0-to-2.5 SUV scale, of 41-y-old man in AM-PET group (diffuse and intense LV uptake) and of 3 Onc-PET patients with myocardial uptake: 71-y-old man with history of inferior myocardial infarction (MI; arrows mark uptake on inferior and inferoseptal segments),76-y-old woman with history of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTCA; arrows mark uptake on proximal parts of anterior and septal walls), and 81-y-old man with no cardiovascular (CV) history (diffuse LV uptake). Myocardial-to-blood SUVmax ratio was 4.0 in AM-PET patient and ranged from 2.13 to 2.18 in Onc-PET patients.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1.

    Main Data Recorded at Time of PET/CT in Overall Onc-PET Group, Onc-PET Subgroup with Myocardial Uptake, and AM-PET Group

    CharacteristicOverall Onc-PETOnc-PET with myocardial uptakeAM-PETP
    All patients (n)50813731
    Female patients (n)246 (48.3)64 (46.7)1 (3.2)<0.0001
    Age (y)64.0 (54.8–72.0)65.7 (55.0–73.4)26.5 (21.9–33.8)<0.0001
    Body mass index (kg/m2)25.5 (22.5–29.1)26.1 (23.1–29.5)24.9 (23.2–27.7)0.27
    CV history and risk factors (n)
     CAD history40 (7.9)14 (10.2)0 (0)0.075
     Myocardial infarction history24 (4.7)9 (6.6)0 (0)0.21
     No. CV risk factors1 (0–2)1 (0–2)0 (0–1)0.005
     Active smoking7 (1.4)2 (1.5)7 (22.6)0.0001
     Obesity102 (20.1)29 (21.3)5 (16.7)0.80
     Treated hypertension207 (40.7)58 (42.3)1 (3.2)<0.0001
     Treated dyslipidemia78 (15.3)20 (14.6)1 (3.2)0.13
     Treated diabetes102 (20.0)26 (19.0)0 (0)0.005
    Oncologic data (n)
     Diagnosed cancer466 (91.5)124 (90.5)
     Diagnosed NET423 (83.1)111 (81.0)
     ≥2 tumor grade275 (54.3)68 (49.6)
     External radiotherapy history100 (19.6)28 (20.4)
     Internal radiotherapy history87 (17.1)17 (12.4)
     Oncologic surgery history266 (52.3)62 (45.3)
     Current chemotherapy61 (12.0)26 (19.0)
     Current immunotherapy67 (13.2)14 (10.2)
     Somatostatin analog treatment*193 (37.9)25 (18.2)
    CV PET/CT data
     Presence of myocardial uptake (n)137 (26.9)137 (100)31 (100)1
     Segments with myocardial uptake (n)0.0 (0.0–3.0)6.0 (3.0–9.0)15.0 (10.0–17.0)<0.0001
     Myocardial uptake volume (cm3)0.0 (0.0–0.09)2.2 (0.6–9.5)47.3 (24.0–135.0)<0.0001
     Myocardial-to-blood SUVmax ratio1.44 (1.25–1.79)2.00 (1.76–2.18)2.80 (2.29–3.00)<0.0001
    • ↵* Somatostatin analogs were not administered in 4 wk preceding PET.

    • CV = cardiovascular; NET = neuroendocrine tumor.

    • P values relate to comparison between AM-PET group and Onc-PET group with myocardial uptake. Qualitative data are number and percentage; continuous data are median and range.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2.

    Univariate and Multivariate Predictors of Myocardial Uptake and Log-Transformed Myocardial-to-Blood SUVmax Ratio in Onc-PET Group

    Myocardial uptakeLn of SUVmax ratio
    UnivariateMultivariateUnivariateMultivariate
    Characteristicexp(β)Pexp(β)Pexp(β)Pexp(β)P
    Women1.070 (0.620–1.848)0.810.973 (0.877–1.079)0.60
    Age (y)1.018 (0.993–1.044)0.161.005 (1.001–1.009)0.0121.003 (0.999–1.006)0.16
    Body mass index (kg/m2)1.049 (0.995–1.106)0.0751.006 (0.996–1.015)0.23
    CV history and risk factors
     CAD history1.646 (0.758–3.572)0.211.184 (1.024–1.369)0.0231.177 (1.024–1.353)0.022
     Myocardial infarction history1.887 (0.717–4.964)0.201.214 (1.015–1.451)0.034
     ≥1 CV risk factor0.970 (0.587–1.602)0.911.015 (0.922–1.118)0.76
     Active smoking0.962 (0.127–7.285)0.971.007 (0.676–1.500)0.97
     Obesity1.329 (0.723–2.442)0.361.043 (0.944–1.152)0.41
     Treated hypertension1.076 (0.619–1.871)0.800.957 (0.862–1.063)0.42
     Treated dyslipidemia1.045 (0.482–2.264)0.911.064 (0.924–1.225)0.39
     Treated diabetes0.872 (0.433–1.756)0.701.036 (0.910–1.178)0.59
    Oncologic data
     Diagnosed cancer0.829 (0.380–1.805)0.640.881 (0.769–1.009)0.069
     Diagnosed NET0.730 (0.383–1.391)0.340.978 (0.870–1.099)0.70
     ≥2 tumor grade0.839 (0.481–1.463)0.540.869 (0.783–0.963)0.008
     External radiotherapy history1.090 (0.500–2.378)0.831.044 (0.911–1.195)0.54
     Internal radiotherapy history0.532 (0.264–1.071)0.0780.950 (0.848–1.065)0.38
     Oncologic surgery history0.771 (0.459–1.297)0.330.900 (0.820–0.989)0.028
     Current chemotherapy1.639 (0.712–3.772)0.251.008 (0.888–1.145)0.90
     Current immunotherapy0.820 (0.399–1.686)0.591.053 (0.939–1.180)0.38
     Current somatostatin analog treatment*0.325 (0.171–0.619)0.00070.805 (0.728–0.890)<0.00010.759 (0.695–0.830)<0.00010.761 (0.698–0.831)<0.001
    • ↵* Somatostatin analogs were not administered in 4 wk preceding PET.

    • CV = cardiovascular; NET = neuroendocrine tumor.

    • P values relate to comparison between AM-PET group and Onc-PET group with myocardial uptake. Data in parentheses are 95% CI.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 65 (8)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 65, Issue 8
August 1, 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
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.
Factors Associated with Myocardial Uptake on Oncologic Somatostatin PET Investigations and Differentiation from Myocardial Uptake of Acute Myocarditis
(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
Factors Associated with Myocardial Uptake on Oncologic Somatostatin PET Investigations and Differentiation from Myocardial Uptake of Acute Myocarditis
Thomas Larive, Caroline Boursier, Marine Claudin, Jeanne Varlot, Laura Filippetti, Olivier Huttin, Véronique Roch, Laetitia Imbert, Matthieu Doyen, Aurélien Lambert, Damien Mandry, Zohra Lamiral, Elodie Chevalier, Pierre-Yves Marie
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2024, 65 (8) 1279-1285; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.123.267219

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Factors Associated with Myocardial Uptake on Oncologic Somatostatin PET Investigations and Differentiation from Myocardial Uptake of Acute Myocarditis
Thomas Larive, Caroline Boursier, Marine Claudin, Jeanne Varlot, Laura Filippetti, Olivier Huttin, Véronique Roch, Laetitia Imbert, Matthieu Doyen, Aurélien Lambert, Damien Mandry, Zohra Lamiral, Elodie Chevalier, Pierre-Yves Marie
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2024, 65 (8) 1279-1285; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.123.267219
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Cardiac Function Consequences of the Persistence of Acute Myocarditis Somatostatin-PET Criteria Four Months Post-Acute Phase
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • SNMMI Procedure Standard/EANM Practice Guideline for Brain [18F]FDG PET Imaging, Version 2.0
  • Meeting Upcoming Clinical and Diagnostic Needs in Oncologic Imaging: A Structured Reporting System for Fibroblast-Activation-Protein–Targeted Imaging—FAP-RADS Version 1.0
  • Imaging Efficacy of [18F]CTT1057 PET for the Detection of PSMA-Positive Tumors Using Histopathology as Standard of Truth: Results from the GuideView Phase 2/3 Prospective Multicenter Study
Show more Clinical Investigation

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • [68Ga]Ga-DOTATOC
  • PET
  • myocardial inflammation
  • somatostatin receptor
  • acute myocarditis
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire