Value of peptide receptor scintigraphy using (123)I-vasoactive intestinal peptide and (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe1-octreotide in 194 carcinoid patients: Vienna University Experience, 1993 to 1998.

Raderer M, Kurtaran A, Leimer M, Angelberger P, Niederle B, Vierhapper H, Vorbeck F, Hejna MH, Scheithauer W, Pidlich J, Virgolini I

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology1 Mar 2000Cited by 42 (Europe PMC)

PMID10715305DOI10.1200/jco.2000.18.6.1331PepBankPUB-10715305

Publisher page PubMedAsk about this study

Jump to 4 results

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: Publisher copyright. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study4

4 results from studies that gave the peptide. 4 results from people.

01HumanNon-randomized trialEfficacy outcome
In carcinoid patients, 32 of 38 (82%) scans with (123)I-VIP were positive in primary or recurrent tumors, fewer than with (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-octreotide (35 of 38).
In plain wordsIn carcinoid patients, the VIP tracer scan was positive in 82% of scans for primary or recurrent tumours, fewer than the octreotide tracer scan.
Peptide
Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP, aviptadil)
Outcome
Not applicablePositive 123I-VIP scans in primary or recurrent carcinoid tumors
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
(111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-octreotide scan
Outcome group
Diagnostic imaging · Cancer
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
Positive scans
32 scans
primary or recurrent tumors, 123I-VIP
Positive scans
82%
primary or recurrent tumors, 123I-VIP
Source sentences
Summary
35 (93%) of 38 versus 32 (82%) of 38 scans being positive in primary or recurrent tumors
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
One hundred ninety-four patients with a verified or clinically suspected diagnosis of a carcinoid tumor were injected with (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-OCT for imaging purposes, while 133 patients underwent scanning with both (123)I-VIP and (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-OCT in random order.
Report a problemFND-1071530501
02HumanNon-randomized trialEfficacy outcome
In carcinoid patients, 53 of 65 (82%) scans with (123)I-VIP were positive in patients with metastatic sites, fewer than with (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-octreotide (58 of 65).
In plain wordsIn carcinoid patients, the VIP tracer scan was positive in 82% of scans for patients with metastases, fewer than the octreotide tracer scan.
Peptide
Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP, aviptadil)
Outcome
Not applicablePositive 123I-VIP scans in patients with metastatic sites
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
(111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-octreotide scan
Outcome group
Diagnostic imaging · Cancer
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
Positive scans
53 scans
metastatic sites, 123I-VIP
Positive scans
82%
metastatic sites, 123I-VIP
Source sentences
Summary
58 (90%) of 65 versus 53 (82%) of 65 being positive in patients with metastatic sites
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
One hundred ninety-four patients with a verified or clinically suspected diagnosis of a carcinoid tumor were injected with (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-OCT for imaging purposes, while 133 patients underwent scanning with both (123)I-VIP and (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-OCT in random order.
Report a problemFND-1071530502
03HumanNon-randomized trialEfficacy outcome
In carcinoid patients with symptoms but otherwise negative work-ups, four of 16 (25%) scans with (123)I-VIP were positive, fewer than with (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-octreotide (seven of 16).
In plain wordsIn carcinoid patients with symptoms but negative other tests, the VIP tracer scan was positive in 25% of scans, fewer than the octreotide tracer scan.
Peptide
Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP, aviptadil)
Outcome
Not applicablePositive 123I-VIP scans in symptomatic patients with otherwise negative work-ups
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
(111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-octreotide scan
Outcome group
Diagnostic imaging · Cancer
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
Positive scans
25%
symptoms, otherwise negative work-up, 123I-VIP
Source sentences
Summary
seven (44%) of 16 versus four (25%) of 16 being positive in patients with symptoms but otherwise negative work-ups.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
One hundred ninety-four patients with a verified or clinically suspected diagnosis of a carcinoid tumor were injected with (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-OCT for imaging purposes, while 133 patients underwent scanning with both (123)I-VIP and (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-OCT in random order.
Report a problemFND-1071530503
04HumanNon-randomized trialEfficacy outcome
Overall, 25 of 103 (25%) scans with (123)I-VIP showed additional lesions not seen on conventional imaging, fewer than with (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-octreotide (43 of 158).
In plain wordsThe VIP tracer scan found extra lesions, not seen on standard imaging, in 25% of scans. The octreotide tracer scan found them in 41%.
Peptide
Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP, aviptadil)
Outcome
Not applicableAdditional lesions seen with 123I-VIP scans
Study
n: not reported in source
Comparator
(111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-octreotide scan
Outcome group
Diagnostic imaging · Cancer
Studied dose
Dose not stated
Measurements
Scans with additional lesions
25 scans
123I-VIP
Scans with additional lesions
25%
123I-VIP
Source sentences
Summary
Overall, additional lesions not seen on conventional imaging were imaged in 43 (41%) of 158 versus 25 (25%) of 103 scans with (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-OCT and (123)I-VIP, respectively.
1 context sentence(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
One hundred ninety-four patients with a verified or clinically suspected diagnosis of a carcinoid tumor were injected with (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-OCT for imaging purposes, while 133 patients underwent scanning with both (123)I-VIP and (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe(1)-OCT in random order.
Report a problemFND-1071530504

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

Version 2Current
9 Oct 2026, 19:08 UTC
Study results updated
Version 1
9 Oct 2026, 12:41 UTC
First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

Publication types

MeSH terms

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.