Background: The initial treatment of patients with acute limb ischemia (ALI) remains undefined. The aim of this article was to compare the safety and effectiveness of catheter-driven thrombolysis (CDT) with surgical revascularization and evaluate the various fibrinolytic agents, endovascular, and pharmacochemical approaches that aim for thrombectomy.Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies on the management of ALI by means of surgical or endovascular recanalization, returning 520 studies. All randomized, controlled trials, nonrandomized prospective, and retrospective studies were included comparing treatment of ALI.Results: Twenty-five studies, investigating a total of 4689 patients, were included for meta-analysis spread across nine different comparisons. No differences were found in limb salvage between thrombectomy and thrombolysis. More major vascular events were seen in the thrombolysis group (6.5% compared with 4.4% in the surgically treated group; odds ratio [OR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.87; P ¼ .02; I 2 ¼ 20%). Comparable limb salvage was found for high-and low-dose recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (r-tPA). No significant differences were found in major vascular event between low r-tPA (14%) and high r-tPA (10.5%; P ¼ .13). The 30-day limb salvage rate was 79.7% for r-tPA treatment and 60.4% for streptokinase (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.26-7.85; P ¼ .01; I 2 ¼ 0%). AngioJet showed more limb salvage at 6 months compared with r-tPa (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.17-4.18; P ¼ .01; I 2 ¼ 0%).Conclusions: Both CDT and surgery have comparable limb salvage rates in patients with ALI; however, CDT is associated with a higher risk of hemorrhagic complications. No conclusions can be drawn regarding the risk of hemorrhagic complications regarding thrombolytic therapy by means of r-tPA, streptokinase, or urokinase. Insufficient data are available to conclude the preference of using a hybrid approach, ultrasound-accelerated CDT, heated r-tPA. or novel endovascular (rheolytical) thrombectomy systems. Future trials regarding ALI need to be constructed carefully, ensuring comparable study groups, and should follow standardized practices of outcome reporting.
The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare 18 F-FDOPA versus 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET in lesion detection rates and laboratory tumor markers in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Patients and Methods: All patients with histologically proven NEN between May 2015 and February 2019 were included who underwent both 18 F-DOPA and 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET scans within 6 months from each other (mean, 75; median, 38; range, 2-168 days). All patients, except those with pancreatic NEN, received carbidopa before 18 F-DOPA PET. Based on the number of lesions on both modalities, patients were divided into 3 categories: more lesions on 18 F-DOPA (DOPA > DOTA), more lesions on 68 Ga-DOTATOC (DOTA > DOPA), and equal number of lesions (DOPA = DOTA). Tumor markers chromogranin A, serotonin, and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) within a maximum of 3 months around either scan were retrieved from the patients' charts. Results: 18 F-DOPA revealed significantly more lesions compared with 68 Ga-DOTATOC (611 vs 385, P < 0.05). Twenty-four patients were included in the DOPA > DOTA group with 16 small intestinal (SI) NENs, 3 large intestinal, 4 pancreatic, and 1 tumor of unknown origin (TUO). For the 9 patients in the DOTA > DOPA group, 4 were SI, 2 pancreatic, 1 lung, and 2 TUOs. Twelve patients in the DOPA = DOTA group had 6 pancreatic tumors, 3 SI, 1 ovarian, and 2 TUOs. Only serotonin and 5-HIAA showed significant higher values for DOPA > DOTA compared with DOTA > DOPA (mean 24 vs 4, P < 0.05, and 320 vs 81, P < 0.05, respectively). Cutoff values of 20 nmol/10 9 for serotonin, 185 μg/L for chromogranin A, and 200 nmol/L for 5-HIAA were found to include almost exclusively DOPA > DOTA patients. Conclusions: There is an advantage of carbidopa pretreated 18 F-DOPA over 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET, especially for large intestinal NENs with high levels of biomarkers. There seems to be a relationship between increased biomarker value and improved lesion detection rates with the 18 F-DOPA PET scan, which requires further prospective analysis.
Background In treatment of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), confirmation of somatostatin receptor expression with 68Ga-DOTA somatostatin analogues is mandatory to determine eligibility for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). [18F]DOPA can detect additional lesions compared to [68Ga]DOTA-TOC. The aim of this study was to explore differences in tumour detection of both tracers and their relevance for selecting patients for PRRT. We retrospectively studied eight patients with NENs who underwent both [68Ga]DOTA-TOC and carbidopa-enhanced [18F]DOPA PET/CT, before first-time PRRT with [177Lu]DOTA-TATE. Tracer order was influenced due to stock availability or to detect suspected metastases with a second tracer. On CT, disease control was defined as a lesion showing complete response, partial response, or stable disease, according to RECIST 1.1. criteria. Results Seven patients with in total 89 lesions completed four infusions of 7.4 GBq [177Lu]DOTA-TATE, one patient received only two cycles. Before treatment, [18F]DOPA PET/CT detected significantly more lesions than [68Ga]DOTA-TOC PET/CT (79 vs. 62, p < .001). After treatment, no difference in number of lesions with disease control was found for [18F]DOPA-only (5/27) and [68Ga]DOTA-TOC-only lesions (4/10, p = .25). [18F]DOPA detected more liver metastases (24/27) compared to [68Ga]DOTA-TOC (7/10, p = .006). Six patients showed inpatient heterogeneity in treatment response between [18F]DOPA-only and [68Ga]DOTA-TOC-only lesions. Conclusions Response to PRRT with [177Lu]DOTA-TATE was comparable for both [68Ga]DOTA-TOC- and [18F]DOPA-only NEN lesions. [18F]DOPA may be capable of predicting response to PRRT while finding more lesions compared to [68Ga]DOTA-TOC, although these additional lesions are often small of size and undetected by diagnostic CT.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.