Analysis of the Diagnostic Efficacy of DOTATATE Imaging Combined with CGA and BSP Detection Mode for NEN Patients with Bone Metastasis

Abstract

In order to explore the clinical efficacy of DOTATATE imaging combined with CGA and BSP in the diagnosis of bone metastasis in patients with NENs, a total of 100 NEN patients treated in our hospital from January 2021 to January 2022 were analyzed. All patients are divided into bone metastasis group and nonmetastasis group according to pathological examination results. The differences of DOTATATE imaging, CGA, and BSP are compared, and ROC curves are obtained to analyze the clinical efficacy of the three indicators in single application and combined diagnosis. The results show that AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of DOTATATE, BSP, and CGA combined diagnosis are higher than those of single diagnosis ( P < 0.05 ). It is clearly evident that DOTATATE test, BSP, and CGA can obtain accurate results in the diagnosis of bone metastasis in NEN patients, and those combined diagnosis can improve the diagnostic efficiency.

Tumour Heterogeneity and the Consequent Practical Challenges in the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

“…Others, however, have argued that there is no clear correlation between SUV values and outcomes [ 62 , 63 , 64 ]. SUVmax on 68Ga-DOTATATE imaging has been found to be higher in patients with bone metastases from NENs of different sites; generally bone metastases in NENs represent a poor prognostic factor [ 65 ]. The inconsistent correlation between SUV changes and outcomes could be due to the presence of spatial and temporal SSTR heterogeneity that may lead to a divergent appearance after treatment on morphologic (CT or magnetic resonance imaging-MRI) versus receptor-based imaging [ 53 ].…”

Retracted: Analysis of the Diagnostic Efficacy of DOTATATE Imaging Combined with CGA and BSP Detection Mode for NEN Patients with Bone Metastasis

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi, as publisher, following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication and peer-review process.…”