nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

25.04.2022 | Original Article

[⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the evaluation of gastric cancer: comparison with [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT

verfasst von: Rong Lin, Zefang Lin, Zhenying Chen, Shan Zheng, Jiaying Zhang, Jie Zang, Weibing Miao

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 8/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the performance of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of primary and metastatic lesions of gastric cancer.

Methods

Fifty-six patients with histologically proven gastric carcinomas were enrolled in this study, including 45 patients for staging and 11 patients for restaging after surgery. Each patient underwent both [¹⁸F]FDG and [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT within 1 week. The activity of tracer accumulation in lesions was assessed by maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) and TBR (lesions SUV_max/ascending aorta SUV_mean). Histological workup served as a standard of reference. If tissue diagnosis was not applicable, the follow-up data including the results of laboratory tests and medical imaging could also serve as a reference.

Results

[⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT was comparable to [¹⁸F]FDG on detecting primary tumors and lymph node (LN) metastases, whereas [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 outperformed [¹⁸F]FDG in detecting peritoneal (159 vs. 47, P < 0.001) and bone metastases (64 vs. 55, P = 0.003) by the lesion-based analysis. [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 showed higher SUV_max (10.3 vs. 8.1, P = 0.004) and TBR (11.6 vs. 5.8, P < 0.001) in primary tumor, and higher TBR in LN involvement (8.0 vs. 3.7, P < 0.001) and peritoneal metastases (8.1 vs. 3.2, P < 0.001), compared with [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT. The specificity and positive predictive value of [⁶⁸ Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 were significantly higher than that of [¹⁸F]FDG (100.0% vs. 97.7%, P < 0.001; 100.0% vs. 57.1%, P = 0.001) in determining the LN status. [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 was comparable to [¹⁸F]FDG in evaluating N-staging (47.1% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.282). [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT detected more positive recurrent lesions in all restaging patients and showed clearer tumor delineation. Two patients underwent follow-up [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT scans after chemotherapy, which both showed remission.

Conclusions

[⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT can better evaluate primary gastric cancer and metastatic lesions in the peritoneum, abdominal LNs, and bone. Furthermore, [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT provided more information for patients with recurrent disease and had the potential in monitoring response to treatment.

Smyth EC, Nilsson M, Grabsch HI, van Grieken NC, Lordick F. Gastric cancer. Lancet. 2020;396:635–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31288-5.CrossRefPubMed

Roukos DH. Current status and future perspectives in gastric cancer management. Cancer Treat Rev. 2000;26:243–55. https://doi.org/10.1053/ctrv.2000.0164.CrossRefPubMed

Lim JS, Yun MJ, Kim MJ, Hyung WJ, Park MS, Choi JY, et al. CT and PET in stomach cancer: preoperative staging and monitoring of response to therapy. Radiographics. 2006;26:143–56. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.261055078.CrossRefPubMed

Smyth E, Schöder H, Strong VE, Capanu M, Kelsen DP, Coit DG, et al. A prospective evaluation of the utility of 2-deoxy-2-[¹⁸F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in staging locally advanced gastric cancer. Cancer. 2012;118:5481–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27550.CrossRefPubMed

Kitajima K, Nakajo M, Kaida H, Minamimoto R, Hirata K, Tsurusaki M, et al. Present and future roles of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of gastrointestinal cancer: an update. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2017;79:527–43. https://doi.org/10.18999/nagjms.79.4.527.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zhao L, Pang Y, Luo Z, Fu K, Yang T, Zhao L, et al. Role of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the evaluation of peritoneal carcinomatosis and comparison with [¹⁸F]-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:1944–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05146-6.CrossRefPubMed

Garin-Chesa P, Old LJ, Rettig WJ. Cell surface glycoprotein of reactive stromal fibroblasts as a potential antibody target in human epithelial cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87:7235–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.18.7235.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hamson EJ, Keane FM, Tholen S, Schilling O, Gorrell MD. Understanding fibroblast activation protein (FAP): substrates, activities, expression and targeting for cancer therapy. Proteomics Clin Appl. 2014;8:454–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/prca.201300095.CrossRefPubMed

Rettig WJ, Su SL, Fortunato SR, Scanlan MJ, Raj BK, Garin-Chesa P, et al. Fibroblast activation protein: purification, epitope mapping and induction by growth factors. Int J Cancer. 1994;58:385–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.2910580314.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Cohen SJ, Alpaugh RK, Palazzo I, Meropol NJ, Rogatko A, Xu Z, et al. Fibroblast activation protein and its relationship to clinical outcome in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Pancreas. 2008;37:154–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0b013e31816618ce.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Zhang Y, Tang H, Cai J, Zhang T, Guo J, Feng D, et al. Ovarian cancer-associated fibroblasts contribute to epithelial ovarian carcinoma metastasis by promoting angiogenesis, lymphangiogenesis and tumor cell invasion. Cancer Lett. 2011;303:47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2011.01.011.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ju MJ, Qiu SJ, Fan J, Xiao YS, Gao Q, Zhou J, et al. Peritumoral activated hepatic stellate cells predict poor clinical outcome in hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131:498–510. https://doi.org/10.1309/ajcp86ppbngohnnl.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Wikberg ML, Edin S, Lundberg IV, Van Guelpen B, Dahlin AM, Rutegård J, et al. High intratumoral expression of fibroblast activation protein (FAP) in colon cancer is associated with poorer patient prognosis. Tumour Biol. 2013;34:1013–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-012-0638-2.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Loktev A, Lindner T, Mier W, Debus J, Altmann A, Jäger D, et al. A tumor-imaging method targeting cancer-associated fibroblasts. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1423–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.210435.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Chen H, Pang Y, Wu J, Zhao L, Hao B, Wu J, et al. Comparison of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [¹⁸F] FDG PET/CT for the diagnosis of primary and metastatic lesions in patients with various types of cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:1820–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04769-z.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kratochwil C, Flechsig P, Lindner T, Abderrahim L, Altmann A, Mier W, et al. ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI PET/CT: tracer uptake in 28 different kinds of cancer. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:801–5. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.227967.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Puré E, Blomberg R. Pro-tumorigenic roles of fibroblast activation protein in cancer: back to the basics. Oncogene. 2018;37:4343–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-018-0275-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Qin C, Shao F, Gai Y, Liu Q, Ruan W, Liu F, et al. ⁶⁸Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/MR in the evaluation of gastric carcinomas: comparison with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:81–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.258467.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2017.CrossRef

20.

Chen H, Zhao L, Ruan D, Pang Y, Hao B, Dai Y, et al. Usefulness of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in patients presenting with inconclusive [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04940-6.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Shi X, Xing H, Yang X, Li F, Yao S, Zhang H, et al. Fibroblast imaging of hepatic carcinoma with ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT: a pilot study in patients with suspected hepatic nodules. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04882-z.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Koerber SA, Staudinger F, Kratochwil C, Adeberg S, Haefner MF, Ungerechts G, et al. The role of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI PET/CT for patients with malignancies of the lower gastrointestinal tract: first clinical experience. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:1331–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.237016.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mochiki E, Kuwano H, Katoh H, Asao T, Oriuchi N, Endo K. Evaluation of ¹⁸F–2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography for gastric cancer. World J Surg. 2004;28:247–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-003-7191-5.CrossRefPubMed

24.

De Potter T, Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Penninckx F, Filez L, Bormans G, et al. Whole-body PET with FDG for the diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:525–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-001-0743-8.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA, Becker K, Link T, Siewert JR, et al. FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:288–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-002-1029-5.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kawamura T, Kusakabe T, Sugino T, Watanabe K, Fukuda T, Nashimoto A, et al. Expression of glucose transporter-1 in human gastric carcinoma: association with tumor aggressiveness, metastasis, and patient survival. Cancer. 2001;92:634–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20010801)92:3%3c634::aid-cncr1364%3e3.0.co;2-x.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Filik M, Kir KM, Aksel B, Soyda Ç, Özkan E, Küçük ÖN, et al. The role of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the primary staging of gastric cancer. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2015;24:15–20. https://doi.org/10.4274/mirt.26349.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Jiang D, Chen X, You Z, Wang H, Xie F. Comparison of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 and ¹⁸F-FDG for the detection of primary gastric cancers and metastasis. 2021. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-326617/v1.

29.

Lu YY, Chen JH, Ding HJ, Chien CR, Lin WY, Kao CH. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pretherapeutic lymph node staging of colorectal cancer by ¹⁸F-FDG PET or PET/CT. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:1127–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e328357b2d9.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Coburn NG. Lymph nodes and gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:199–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21224.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Oh HH, Lee SE, Choi IS, Choi WJ, Yoon DS, Min HS, et al. The peak-standardized uptake value (P-SUV) by preoperative positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is a useful indicator of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104:530–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21985.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Yang QM, Kawamura T, Itoh H, Bando E, Nemoto M, Akamoto S, et al. Is PET-CT suitable for predicting lymph node status for gastric cancer? Hepatogastroenterology. 2008;55:782–5.PubMed

33.

Pang Y, Zhao L, Luo Z, Hao B, Wu H, Lin Q, et al. Comparison of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI and ¹⁸F-FDG uptake in gastric, duodenal, and colorectal cancers. Radiology. 2021;298:393–402. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020203275.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kuten J, Levine C, Shamni O, Pelles S, Wolf I, Lahat G, et al. Head-to-head comparison of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 and [¹⁸F]-FDG PET/CT in evaluating the extent of disease in gastric adenocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05494-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Capobianco A, Cottone L, Monno A, Manfredi AA, Rovere-Querini P. The peritoneum: healing, immunity, and diseases. J Pathol. 2017;243:137–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.4942.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Lv ZD, Wang HB, Li FN, Wu L, Liu C, Nie G, et al. TGF-β1 induces peritoneal fibrosis by activating the Smad2 pathway in mesothelial cells and promotes peritoneal carcinomatosis. Int J Mol Med. 2012;29:373–9. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijmm.2011.852.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Jacob M, Chang L, Puré E. Fibroblast activation protein in remodeling tissues. Curr Mol Med. 2012;12:1220–43. https://doi.org/10.2174/156652412803833607.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Zi F, He J, He D, Li Y, Yang L, Cai Z. Fibroblast activation protein α in tumor microenvironment: recent progression and implications (review). Mol Med Rep. 2015;11:3203–11. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2015.3197.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the evaluation of gastric cancer: comparison with [18F]FDG PET/CT
verfasst von: Rong Lin
Zefang Lin
Zhenying Chen
Shan Zheng
Jiaying Zhang
Jie Zang
Weibing Miao
Publikationsdatum: 25.04.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 8/2022
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05799-5

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

[⁶⁸Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the evaluation of gastric cancer: comparison with [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2022

Dual-tracer PET/CT-targeted, mpMRI-targeted, systematic biopsy, and combined biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a pilot study

Parametric image generation with the uEXPLORER total-body PET/CT system through deep learning

Preclinical and exploratory human studies of novel 68Ga-labeled D-peptide antagonist for PET imaging of TIGIT expression in cancers

Higher accuracy of [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT comparing with 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in clinical staging of NSCLC

Identifying the individual metabolic abnormities from a systemic perspective using whole-body PET imaging

Optimal PET-based radiomic signature construction based on the cross-combination method for predicting the survival of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma