Lukas Kessler1,2, Justin Ferdinandus1,2, Nader Hirmas1,2, Sebastian Bauer2,3, Uta Dirksen2,4, Fadi Zarrad1,2, Michael Nader1,2, Michal Chodyla2,5, Aleksandar Milosevic2,5, Lale Umutlu2,5, Martin Schuler2,3, Lars Erik Podleska2,6, Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus2,7, Wolfgang P Fendler8,2, Rainer Hamacher2,3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 2. German Cancer Consortium, Partner Site University Hospital Essen, and German Cancer Research Center, Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Pediatrics III, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 6. Department of Tumor Orthopedics and Sarcoma Surgery, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; and. 7. Department of Pathology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; wolfgang.fendler@uk-essen.de.
Abstract
Bone and soft-tissue sarcomas express fibroblast activation protein (FAP) on tumor cells and associated fibroblasts. Therefore, FAP is a promising therapeutic and diagnostic target. Novel radiolabeled FAP inhibitors (e.g., 68Ga-FAPI-46) have shown high tumor uptake on PET in sarcoma patients. Here, we report the endpoints of the 68Ga-FAPI PET prospective observational trial. Methods: Forty-seven patients with bone or soft-tissue sarcomas undergoing clinical 68Ga-FAPI PET were eligible for enrollment into the 68Ga-FAPI PET observational trial. Of these patients, 43 also underwent 18F-FDG PET. The primary study endpoint was the association between 68Ga-FAPI PET uptake intensity and histopathologic FAP expression analyzed with Spearman r correlation. Secondary endpoints were detection rate, positive predictive value (PPV), interreader reproducibility, and change in management. Datasets were interpreted by 2 masked readers. Results: The primary endpoint was met, and the association between 68Ga-FAPI PET uptake intensity and histopathologic FAP expression was significant (Spearman r = 0.43; P = 0.03). By histopathologic validation, PPV was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.87-1.00) on a per-patient and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.00) on a per-region basis. In cases with histopathologic validation, 27 of 28 (96%) confirmed patients and 32 of 34 (94%) confirmed regions were PET-positive, resulting in an SE of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82-1.00) on a per-patient and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.80-0.99) on a per-region basis. The detection rate on a per-patient basis in 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET was 76.6% and 81.4%, respectively. In 8 (18.6%) patients, 68Ga-FAPI PET resulted in an upstaging compared with 18F-FDG PET. 68Ga-FAPI PET readers showed substantial to almost perfect agreement for the defined regions (Fleiss κ: primary κ = 0.78, local nodal κ = 0.54, distant nodal κ = 0.91, lung κ = 0.86, bone κ = 0.69, and other κ = 0.65). Clinical management changed in 13 (30%) patients after 68Ga-FAPI PET. Conclusion: We confirm an association between tumoral 68Ga-FAPI PET uptake intensity and histopathologic FAP expression in sarcoma patients. Further, with masked readings and independent histopathologic validation, 68Ga-FAPI PET had a high PPV and sensitivity for sarcoma staging.
Bone and soft-tissue sarcomas express fibroblast activation protein (FAP) on tumor cells and associated fibroblasts. Therefore, FAP is a promising therapeutic and diagnostic target. Novel radiolabeled FAP inhibitors (e.g., 68Ga-FAPI-46) have shown high tumor uptake on PET in sarcoma patients. Here, we report the endpoints of the 68Ga-FAPI PET prospective observational trial. Methods: Forty-seven patients with bone or soft-tissue sarcomas undergoing clinical 68Ga-FAPI PET were eligible for enrollment into the 68Ga-FAPI PET observational trial. Of these patients, 43 also underwent 18F-FDG PET. The primary study endpoint was the association between 68Ga-FAPI PET uptake intensity and histopathologic FAP expression analyzed with Spearman r correlation. Secondary endpoints were detection rate, positive predictive value (PPV), interreader reproducibility, and change in management. Datasets were interpreted by 2 masked readers. Results: The primary endpoint was met, and the association between 68Ga-FAPI PET uptake intensity and histopathologic FAP expression was significant (Spearman r = 0.43; P = 0.03). By histopathologic validation, PPV was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.87-1.00) on a per-patient and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.00) on a per-region basis. In cases with histopathologic validation, 27 of 28 (96%) confirmed patients and 32 of 34 (94%) confirmed regions were PET-positive, resulting in an SE of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82-1.00) on a per-patient and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.80-0.99) on a per-region basis. The detection rate on a per-patient basis in 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET was 76.6% and 81.4%, respectively. In 8 (18.6%) patients, 68Ga-FAPI PET resulted in an upstaging compared with 18F-FDG PET. 68Ga-FAPI PET readers showed substantial to almost perfect agreement for the defined regions (Fleiss κ: primary κ = 0.78, local nodal κ = 0.54, distant nodal κ = 0.91, lung κ = 0.86, bone κ = 0.69, and other κ = 0.65). Clinical management changed in 13 (30%) patients after 68Ga-FAPI PET. Conclusion: We confirm an association between tumoral 68Ga-FAPI PET uptake intensity and histopathologic FAP expression in sarcoma patients. Further, with masked readings and independent histopathologic validation, 68Ga-FAPI PET had a high PPV and sensitivity for sarcoma staging.
Authors: Christian Schmidkonz; Simon Rauber; Armin Atzinger; Rahul Agarwal; Theresa Ida Götz; Alina Soare; Michael Cordes; Olaf Prante; Christina Bergmann; Arnd Kleyer; Philipp Ritt; Simone Maschauer; Peter Hennig; Johannes Toms; Markus Köhner; Bernhard Manger; John H Stone; Uwe Haberkorn; Tobias Baeuerle; Jörg H W Distler; Abbas Agaimy; Torsten Kuwert; Georg Schett; Andreas Ramming Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Thomas Lindner; Anastasia Loktev; Annette Altmann; Frederik Giesel; Clemens Kratochwil; Jürgen Debus; Dirk Jäger; Walter Mier; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M J Scanlan; B K Raj; B Calvo; P Garin-Chesa; M P Sanz-Moncasi; J H Healey; L J Old; W J Rettig Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1994-06-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Justin Ferdinandus; Johannes Czernin; Matthias Eiber; Robert R Flavell; Spencer C Behr; I-Wei K Wu; Courtney Lawhn-Heath; Miguel H Pampaloni; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Jeannine Gartmann; Vishnu Murthy; Roger Slavik; Peter R Carroll; Ken Herrmann; Jeremie Calais; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Fang Liu; Li Qi; Bao Liu; Jie Liu; Hua Zhang; DeHai Che; JingYan Cao; Jing Shen; JianXiong Geng; Yi Bi; LieGuang Ye; Bo Pan; Yan Yu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Manuel Röhrich; Patrick Naumann; Frederik L Giesel; Peter L Choyke; Fabian Staudinger; Annika Wefers; Dawn P Liew; Clemens Kratochwil; Hendrik Rathke; Jakob Liermann; Klaus Herfarth; Dirk Jäger; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn; Matthias Lang; Stefan A Koerber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Justin Ferdinandus; Pedro Fragoso Costa; Lukas Kessler; Manuel Weber; Nader Hirmas; Karina Kostbade; Sebastian Bauer; Martin Schuler; Marit Ahrens; Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus; Christoph Rischpler; Hong Grafe; Jens T Siveke; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang P Fendler; Rainer Hamacher Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Christine E Mona; Matthias R Benz; Firas Hikmat; Tristan R Grogan; Katharina Lueckerath; Aria Razmaria; Rana Riahi; Roger Slavik; Mark D Girgis; Giuseppe Carlucci; Kimberly A Kelly; Samuel W French; Johannes Czernin; David W Dawson; Jeremie Calais Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: David Kersting; Stephan Settelmeier; Ilektra-Antonia Mavroeidi; Ken Herrmann; Robert Seifert; Christoph Rischpler Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 5.923