Physiologically increased pancreatic uptake at the head/uncinate process is observed in more than one-third of patients after injection of one of the three (68)Ga-labelled octreotide-based peptides used for somatostatin (sst) receptor (r) imaging. There are minor differences between these (68)Ga-sstr-binding peptides in the imaging setting. On (68)Ga-sstr-imaging the physiological uptake can be diffuse or focal and usually remains stable over time. Differences in the maximal standardised uptake values (SUVmax) reported for the normal pancreas as well as for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (PNET) lesions may be related to several factors, including (a) differences in the peptide binding affinities as well as differences in sstr subtype expression of pancreatic α- and β-cells, and heterogeneity / density of tumour cells, (b) differences in scanner resolution, image reconstruction techniques and acquisition protocols, (c) mostly retrospective study designs, (d) mixed patient populations, or (e) interference with medications such as treatment with long-acting sst analogues. The major limitation in most of the studies lies in the lack of histopathological confirmation of abnormal findings. There is a significant overlap between the calculated SUVmax-values for physiological pancreas and PNET-lesions of the head/uncinate process that do not favour the use of quantitative parameters in the clinical setting. Anecdotal long-term follow-up studies have even indicated that increased uptake in the head/uncinate process still can turn out to be malignant over years of follow up. SUVmax-data for the pancreatic body and tail are limited. Therefore, any visible focal tracer uptake in the pancreas must be considered as suspicious for malignancy irrespective of quantitative parameters. In general, sstr-PET/CT has significant implications for the management of NET patients leading to a change in treatment decision in about one-third of patients. Therefore, follow-up with (68)Ga-sstr-PET/CT is mandatory in the clinical setting if uptake in the head/uncinate process is observed.

Compliance with ethical standards Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Ethical approval Informed consent was obtained from all individual patients undergoing PET scans at the Medical University of Innsbruck. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.