Receptors for the incretin glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1R) have been found overexpressed in selected types of human tumors and may, therefore, play an increasingly important role in endocrine gastrointestinal tumor management. In particular, virtually all benign insulinomas express GLP-1R in high density. Targeting GLP-1R with indium-111, technetium-99m or gallium-68-labeled exendin-4 offers a new approach that permits the successful localization of small benign insulinomas. It is likely that this new non-invasive technique has the potential to replace the invasive localization of insulinomas by selective arterial stimulation and venous sampling. In contrast to benign insulinomas, malignant insulin-secreting neuroendocrine tumors express GLP-1R in only one-third of the cases, while they more often express the somatostatin subtype 2 receptors. Importantly, one of the two receptors appears to be always overexpressed. In special cases of endogenous hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia (EHH), that is, in the context of MEN-1 or adult nesidioblastosis GLP-1R imaging is useful whereas in postprandial hypoglycemia in the context of bariatric surgery, GLP-1R imaging is probably not helpful. This review focuses on the potential use of GLP-1R imaging in the differential diagnosis of EHH.
Emanuel Christ, Kwadwo Antwi, Melpomeni Fani, and Damian Wild
Julie Refardt, Wouter T Zandee, Tessa Brabander, Richard A Feelders, Gaston J H Franssen, Leo J Hofland, Emanuel Christ, Wouter W de Herder, and Johannes Hofland
Sufficient expression of somatostatin receptor (SSTR) in well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is crucial for treatment with somatostatin analogs (SSAs) and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) using radiolabeled SSAs. Impaired prognosis has been described for SSTR-negative NET patients; however, studies comparing matched SSTR-positive and -negative subjects who have not received PRRT are missing. This retrospective analysis of two prospectively maintained NET databases aimed to compare matched metastatic grade 1 or 2 SSTR-positive and –negative NET patients. SSTR-negativity was defined as having insufficient tumor uptake on diagnostic SSTR imaging. Patients that underwent PRRT were excluded. Seventy-seven SSTR-negative and 248 SSTR-positive grade 1–2 NET patients were included. Median overall survival rates were significantly lower for SSTR-negative compared to SSTR-positive NET patients (53 months vs 131 months; P < 0.001). To adjust for possible confounding by age, gender, grade and site of origin, 69 SSTR-negative NET patients were propensity score matched to 69 SSTR-positive NET patients. Group characteristics were similar, with the exception of SSTR-negative patients receiving more often chemotherapy and targeted treatment. The inferior survival outcome of SSTR-negative compared to SSTR-positive NET patients persisted with a median overall survival of 38 months vs 131 months (P = 0.012). This relationship upheld when correcting for the main influencing factors of having a higher grade tumor or receiving surgery in a multivariate Cox regression analysis. In conclusion, we showed that propensity score-matched SSTR-negative NET patients continue to have a worse prognosis compared to SSTR-positive NET patients despite receiving more aggressive treatment. Differences in tumor biology likely underlie this survival deficit.