nach oben

European Radiology

Erschienen in:

05.04.2022 | Gastrointestinal

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Superiority of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET/CT to [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in delineating the primary tumor and peritoneal metastasis in initial gastric cancer

verfasst von: Lilan Fu, Shun Huang, Hubing Wu, Ye Dong, Fei Xie, Ruihe Wu, Kemin Zhou, Ganghua Tang, Wenlan Zhou

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 9/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET/CT with [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of initial gastric cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively compared [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET/CT with [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in patients with initial gastric cancer from September 2020 to March 2021. Lesion detectability and the uptake of lesions quantified by the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and target-to-background ratio (TBR) were compared between the two modalities using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Mann–Whitney U test, and McNemar’s chi-square test.

Results

A total of 61 patients (37 males, aged 23–81 years) were included, of which 22 underwent radical gastrectomy. For primary lesions, higher uptake of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 was observed compared to [¹⁸F]FDG (median SUVmax, 14.60 vs 4.35, p < 0.001), resulting in higher positive detection using [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET/CT than [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT (95.1% vs 73.8%, p < 0.001), particularly for tumors with signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) (96.4% vs 57.1%, p < 0.001). [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET/CT detected more positive lymph nodes than [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT (637 vs 407). However, both modalities underestimated N staging compared to pathological N staging. [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET/CT showed a higher sensitivity (92.3% vs 53.8%, p = 0.002) and peritoneal cancer index score (18 vs 3, p < 0.001) in peritoneum metastasis and other suspect metastases compared to [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET/CT outperformed [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of primary tumors with SRCC and peritoneum metastasis in initial gastric cancer. However, no clinically useful improvement was seen in N staging.

Key Points

• The uptake of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 in primary tumor and metastasis was intensely higher than that of [¹⁸F]FDG (p < 0.001) in 61 patients with initial gastric cancer.

• [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET/CT had a higher sensitivity detection in primary tumors (95.1% vs 73.8%, p < 0.001) and peritoneal metastases (92.3% vs 53.8%, p = 0.002) than [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT.

• [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET/CT depicted more positive lymph nodes than [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT (637 vs 407); however, both underestimated N staging compared to pathological N staging.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249CrossRef

Kwee RM, Kwee TC (2009) Imaging in assessing lymph node status in gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 12:6–22CrossRef

Wang Z, Chen JQ (2011) Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol 11:19CrossRef

Yun M, Lim JS, Noh SH et al (2005) Lymph node staging of gastric cancer using (18)F-FDG PET: a comparison study with CT. J Nucl Med 46:1582–1588

Findlay JM, Antonowicz S, Segaran A et al (2019) Routinely staging gastric cancer with ¹⁸F-FDG PET-CT detects additional metastases and predicts early recurrence and death after surgery. Eur Radiol 29:2490–2498CrossRef

Smyth E, Schöder H, Strong VE et al (2012) A prospective evaluation of the utility of 2-deoxy-2-[(18) F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in staging locally advanced gastric cancer. Cancer 118:5481–5488CrossRef

Kim SJ, Cho YS, Moon SH et al Primary tumor ¹⁸F-FDG avidity affects the performance of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for detecting gastric cancer recurrence. J Nucl Med 57:544–550

Yoshioka T, Yamaguchi K, Kubota K et al (2003) Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET in patients with advanced, metastatic, or recurrent gastric cancer. J Nucl Med 44:690–669

Lindner T, Loktev A, Altmann A et al (2018) Development of quinoline-based theranostic ligands for the targeting of fibroblast activation protein. J Nucl Med 59:1415–1422CrossRef

10.

Kratochwil C, Flechsig P, Lindner T et al (2019) (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT: tracer uptake in 28 different kinds of cancer. J Nucl Med 60:801–805CrossRef

11.

Chen H, Pang Y, Wu J et al (2020) Comparison of [(68)Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [(18)F] FDG PET/CT for the diagnosis of primary and metastatic lesions in patients with various types of cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47:1820–1832CrossRef

12.

Chen H, Zhao L, Ruan D et al (2021) Usefulness of [(68)Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in patients presenting with inconclusive [(18)F]FDG PET/CT findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:73–86CrossRef

13.

Koerber SA, Staudinger F, Kratochwil C et al (2020) The role of (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT for patients with malignancies of the lower gastrointestinal tract: first clinical experience. J Nucl Med 61:1331–1336CrossRef

14.

Wang S, Zhou X, Xu X et al (2021) Clinical translational evaluation of Al(18)F-NOTA-FAPI for fibroblast activation protein-targeted tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:4259–4271CrossRef

15.

Pang Y, Zhao L, Luo Z et al (2021) Comparison of (68)Ga-FAPI and (18)F-FDG uptake in gastric, duodenal, and colorectal cancers. Radiology 298:393–402CrossRef

16.

Qin C, Shao F, Gai Y et al (2022) (68)Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/MR in the evaluation of gastric carcinomas: comparison with (18)F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 63:81–88

17.

Jiang D, Chen X, You Z et al (2021) Comparison of [(68) Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 and [(18)F]-FDG for the detection of primary and metastatic lesions in patients with gastric cancer: a bicentric retrospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49(2):732–742

18.

Kuten J, Levine C, Shamni O et al (2022) Head-to-head comparison of [(68)Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 and [(18)F]-FDG PET/CT in evaluating the extent of disease in gastric adenocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49:743–750

19.

Loktev A, Lindner T, Burger EM et al (2019) Development of fibroblast activation protein-targeted radiotracers with improved tumor retention. J Nucl Med 60:1421–1429CrossRef

20.

Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH (1996) Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treat Res 82:359–374CrossRef

21.

Mukai K, Ishida Y, Okajima K, Isozaki H, Morimoto T, Nishiyama S (2006) Usefulness of preoperative FDG-PET for detection of gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 9:192–196CrossRef

22.

Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA et al (2003) FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:288–295CrossRef

23.

Yamada A, Oguchi K, Fukushima M, Imai Y, Kadoya M (2006) Evaluation of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography in gastric carcinoma: relation to histological subtypes, depth of tumor invasion, and glucose transporter-1 expression. Ann Nucl Med 20:597–604CrossRef

24.

Kawamura T, Kusakabe T, Sugino T et al (2001) Expression of glucose transporter-1 in human gastric carcinoma: association with tumor aggressiveness, metastasis, and patient survival. Cancer 92:634–641CrossRef

25.

Tsujimoto H, Sugasawa H, Ono S, Ichikura T, Yamamoto J, Hase K (2010) Has the accuracy of preoperative diagnosis improved in cases of early-stage gastric cancer? World J Surg 34:1840–1866CrossRef

26.

Kim SK, Kang KW, Lee JS et al (2006) Assessment of lymph node metastases using ¹⁸F-FDG PET in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:148–155CrossRef

27.

Kudou M, Kosuga T, Kubota et al (2018). Value of preoperative PET-CT in the prediction of pathological stage of gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 25:1633-1639.

28.

Sadeghi B, Arvieux C, Glehen O et al (2000) Peritoneal carcinomatosis from non-gynecologic malignancies: results of the EVOCAPE 1 multicentric prospective study. Cancer 88:358–363CrossRef

29.

Lim JS, Kim MJ, Yun MJ et al (2006) Comparison of CT and ¹⁸F-FDG pet for detecting peritoneal metastasis on the preoperative evaluation for gastric carcinoma. Korean J Radiol 7:249–256CrossRef

30.

Sim SH, Kim YJ, Oh DY et al (2009) The role of PET/CT in detection of gastric cancer recurrence. BMC Cancer 9:73CrossRef

31.

Mo S, Cai G (2016) Multidisciplinary treatment for colorectal peritoneal metastases: review of the literature. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016:1516259CrossRef

32.

Zhao L, Pang Y, Luo Z et al (2021) Role of [(68)Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the evaluation of peritoneal carcinomatosis and comparison with [(18)F]-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:1944–1955

33.

Hu K, Wang L, Wu H et al (2021) [¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET imaging in cancer patients: optimal acquisition time, biodistribution, and comparison with [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05646-z

Titel: RETRACTED ARTICLE: Superiority of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT to [18F]FDG PET/CT in delineating the primary tumor and peritoneal metastasis in initial gastric cancer
verfasst von: Lilan Fu
Shun Huang
Hubing Wu
Ye Dong
Fei Xie
Ruihe Wu
Kemin Zhou
Ganghua Tang
Wenlan Zhou
Publikationsdatum: 05.04.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 9/2022
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08743-1

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Chronische Unterbauch- und Viszeralschmerzen in der Praxis managen"

Springer Medizin

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Superiority of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[¹⁸F]FAPI-42 PET/CT to [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in delineating the primary tumor and peritoneal metastasis in initial gastric cancer