TABLE 1

Study Characteristics

StudyQuality scoreCancer/benignSensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)Patient populationTreatment management
Studies comparing 68Ga-DOTATATE and 111In-octreotide with conventional imaging
 Hofman et al. (14)8n = 59, 40 underwent both scan modalities (cancer 52/benign 7)100 (93–100)86 (43–100)Clinical need nonconsecutive patients. 52 proven or suspected bronchial or GEP NETs and 7 other tumors; 40 underwent both DOTATATE and octreotide scans.DOTATATE provided additional clinically significant information in 33 (83%) patients. Bone metastasis (18 patients) was the most common differential result.
 Srirajaskanthan et al. (15)747/487 (74–95)100 (40–100)Patients with negative or equivocal octreotide scans; 27 receiving somatostatin analog medication.Major impact on 36 (71%) with PRRT (n = 20) treatment being the most common change.
 Deppen et al. (16)9n = 97 DOTATATE scans, 78 also with octreotide scans (cancer 50/benign 28)96 (86–100)93 (77–99)Consecutive patients prospectively enrolled comparing the imaging modalities. 76 proven or suspected GEP, intestinal, or bronchial NETs.DOTATATE scans resulted in major (36%) or minor (14%) treatment changes. Octreotide false-negative in 14.
Studies comparing 68Ga-DOTATATE with conventional imaging
 Alonso et al. (17)729/079 (62–90)NAEvaluation of patients with metastatic NET from unknown primaries not seen by conventional imaging.No statements regarding treatment change. Primary found in 17 (59%). DOTATATE found greater extent of tumor in 6 more (21%).
 Etchebehere et al. (18)8n = 19 results reported by body region100 (NA)a67 (NA)*DOTATATE compared with whole-body MRI and 99mTc-HYNIC-octreotide SPECT/CT in proven NET patients with suspected recurrence.No statements regarding treatment change. DOTATATE and MRI combined found all primary and significant metastatic tumors. DOTATATE found bone metastases missed by MRI and SPECT/CT.
 Haug et al. (20)718/2794 (72–100)89 (71–98)Restaging of postresection NETs by DOTATATE and conventional imaging.No statements regarding treatment change.
 Haug et al. (19)936/6881 (64–92)90 (80–96)Staging of patients by presentation type: symptomatic, pathologically proven, and suspicious imaging.No statements regarding treatment change.
 Haug et al. (24)725/096 (80–100)NAMetastatic disease in 14 GEP, 6 lung, 4 unknown primary, and 1 paranasal sinus primary.Superior sensitivity compared with 18F-DOPA; other changes to treatment not stated compared with conventional imaging.
 Kayani et al. (21)838/082 (67–91)NAMetastatic disease in 28 GEP, 6 lung, and 4 metastatic NETs with unknown primary. Compared with 18F-FDG PET.Change in PRRT in 4 with low DOTATATE uptake. Complementary to 18F-FDG PET regarding tumor grade.
 Lastoria et al. (25)718/0100 (82–100)NA11 GEP NETs. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 syndrome in all patients.No statements regarding treatment impact.
 Poeppel et al. (22)640/0NANAAll proven GEP NETs with and without recurrence. DOTATATE compared with DOTATOC. All lesions verified via CT or follow-up.No difference in management impact between DOTATATE and DOTANOC.
 Wild et al. (23)1118/094 (74–99)NABiopsy-proven metastatic GEP with CT or MR imaging also available. All patients underwent both DOTATATE and DOTANOC scans.No difference in management impact between DOTATATE and DOTANOC. Change in surgical plan in 3 patients.
  • * For all solid organs, 100% sensitive and specific for musculoskeletal metastases.

  • GEP tumors, unmasked reviewers.

  • Included 12 without NET tumor.

  • PRRT = peptide receptor radionuclide therapy; NA = not applicable; HYNIC = hydrazinonicotinic.