Chunxia Qin1,2, Fang Liu1,2, Jing Huang3, Weiwei Ruan1,2, Qingyao Liu1,2, Yongkang Gai1,2, Fan Hu1,2, Dawei Jiang1,2, Yu Hu4, Kunyu Yang5, Xiaoli Lan6,7. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1277 Jiefang Ave, Wuhan, 430022, China. 2. Hubei Province Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Wuhan, 430022, China. 3. Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. 4. Institute of Haematology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. 5. Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, China. yangkunyu@medmail.com.cn. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1277 Jiefang Ave, Wuhan, 430022, China. xiaoli_lan@hust.edu.cn. 7. Hubei Province Key Laboratory of Molecular Imaging, Wuhan, 430022, China. xiaoli_lan@hust.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To conduct a head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic ability of 68Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 (68Ga-FAPI) and 18F-FDG PET/MR in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with NPC were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent head-and-neck 68Ga-FAPI PET/MR and 18F-FDG PET/MR within 1 week. Primary tumor, lymph node numbers, and tracer uptake were compared by SUVmax and visual evaluation. The primary tumor volumes derived from 68Ga-FAPI, 18F-FDG PET, and MRI were also compared. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were enrolled from June to August 2020. Both 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET had 100% detection rate of the primary tumor. The 68Ga-FAPI SUVmax of primary tumors (13.87 ± 5.13) was lower than that of 18F-FDG (17.73 ± 6.84), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.078). Compared with 18F-FDG, 68Ga-FAPI PET improved the delineation of skull-base invasion in eight out of eight patients and intracranial invasion in four out of four patients. When 25%SUVmax of 68Ga-FAPI or 20%SUVmax of 18F-FDG was utilized as a threshold for determining tumor volume, it was highly consistent with MRI. 18F-FDG PET detected much more positive lymph nodes than 68Ga-FAPI (100 vs 48). The SUVmax of 48 paired lymph nodes was significantly lower on 68Ga-FAPI than 18F-FDG (8.67 ± 3.88 vs 11.79 ± 6.17, p < 0.001). Additionally, 68Ga-FAPI further detected four highly suspected small, distant metastases in three patients. Compared with 18F-FDG, 68Ga-FAPI changed overall staging in six of fifteen patients, with three patients being up-staged, and three down-staged. CONCLUSION: 68Ga-FAPI outperforms 18F-FDG in delineating the primary tumor and detecting suspected distant metastases, particularly in the evaluation of skull-base and intracranial invasion, suggesting 68Ga-FAPI hybrid PET/MR has the potential to serve as a single-step staging modality for patients with NPC. However, its value regarding lymph node and distant metastases evaluation needs further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04554719. Registered September 8, 2020 - retrospectively registered, http://clinicaltrails.gov/show/NCT04554719.
PURPOSE: To conduct a head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic ability of 68Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 (68Ga-FAPI) and 18F-FDG PET/MR in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. METHODS:Patients diagnosed with NPC were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent head-and-neck 68Ga-FAPI PET/MR and 18F-FDG PET/MR within 1 week. Primary tumor, lymph node numbers, and tracer uptake were compared by SUVmax and visual evaluation. The primary tumor volumes derived from 68Ga-FAPI, 18F-FDG PET, and MRI were also compared. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were enrolled from June to August 2020. Both 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET had 100% detection rate of the primary tumor. The 68Ga-FAPI SUVmax of primary tumors (13.87 ± 5.13) was lower than that of 18F-FDG (17.73 ± 6.84), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.078). Compared with 18F-FDG, 68Ga-FAPI PET improved the delineation of skull-base invasion in eight out of eight patients and intracranial invasion in four out of four patients. When 25%SUVmax of 68Ga-FAPI or 20%SUVmax of 18F-FDG was utilized as a threshold for determining tumor volume, it was highly consistent with MRI. 18F-FDG PET detected much more positive lymph nodes than 68Ga-FAPI (100 vs 48). The SUVmax of 48 paired lymph nodes was significantly lower on 68Ga-FAPI than 18F-FDG (8.67 ± 3.88 vs 11.79 ± 6.17, p < 0.001). Additionally, 68Ga-FAPI further detected four highly suspected small, distant metastases in three patients. Compared with 18F-FDG, 68Ga-FAPI changed overall staging in six of fifteen patients, with three patients being up-staged, and three down-staged. CONCLUSION: 68Ga-FAPI outperforms 18F-FDG in delineating the primary tumor and detecting suspected distant metastases, particularly in the evaluation of skull-base and intracranial invasion, suggesting 68Ga-FAPI hybrid PET/MR has the potential to serve as a single-step staging modality for patients with NPC. However, its value regarding lymph node and distant metastases evaluation needs further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04554719. Registered September 8, 2020 - retrospectively registered, http://clinicaltrails.gov/show/NCT04554719.
Authors: Clemens Kratochwil; Paul Flechsig; Thomas Lindner; Labidi Abderrahim; Annette Altmann; Walter Mier; Sebastian Adeberg; Hendrik Rathke; Manuel Röhrich; Hauke Winter; Peter K Plinkert; Frederik Marme; Matthias Lang; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Dirk Jäger; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Roberto Delgado-Bolton; Wim J G Oyen; Francesco Giammarile; Klaus Tatsch; Wolfgang Eschner; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Sally F Barrington; Lucy C Pike; Wolfgang A Weber; Sigrid Stroobants; Dominique Delbeke; Kevin J Donohoe; Scott Holbrook; Michael M Graham; Giorgio Testanera; Otto S Hoekstra; Josee Zijlstra; Eric Visser; Corneline J Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Antoon Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Jörg Kotzerke; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas Beyer; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anastasia Loktev; Thomas Lindner; Walter Mier; Jürgen Debus; Annette Altmann; Dirk Jäger; Frederik Giesel; Clemens Kratochwil; Philippe Barthe; Christian Roumestand; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: E Novruzov; K Dendl; H Ndlovu; P L Choyke; M Dabir; M Beu; F Novruzov; E Mehdi; F Guliyev; S A Koerber; I Lawal; G Niegisch; J Debus; U Haberkorn; M Sathekge; F L Giesel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 3.484