Lianjun Lan1, Hanxiang Liu2,3,4, Yingwei Wang2,3,4, Jia Deng2,3,4, Dengsai Peng2,3,4, Yue Feng2,3,4, Li Wang2,3,4, Yue Chen5,6,7, Lin Qiu8,9,10. 1. Department of Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, No 25. Taiping St, Jiangyang District, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, No. 25 Taiping St, Jiangyang District, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 3. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 4. Academician (Expert) Workstation of Sichuan Province, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, No. 25 Taiping St, Jiangyang District, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. chenyue5523@126.com. 6. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. chenyue5523@126.com. 7. Academician (Expert) Workstation of Sichuan Province, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. chenyue5523@126.com. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, No. 25 Taiping St, Jiangyang District, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. quilin17111210041@163.com. 9. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. quilin17111210041@163.com. 10. Academician (Expert) Workstation of Sichuan Province, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. quilin17111210041@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the detection performance of [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT in the patients with various oncological and non-oncological lesions. METHODS: A total of 123 patients underwent contemporaneous [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT were included in this prospective study. The maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) was measured to compare oncological and non-oncological lesion uptake. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy of [18F]FDG and [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT for detecting primary, metastatic, and non-oncological lesions were calculated and compared to evaluate the detection efficacy. RESULTS: The study subjects consisted of 123 patients (69 men and 54 women; mean age 56.11 ± 11.94 years). Among the 102 patients with either newly diagnosed (82 patients) or previously treated solid tumor (20 patients), a total of 88 solid primary malignant tumors in 84/102 patients were detected. Two patients had two primary tumors each and 1 patient had three primary tumors. Among them, 58/102 and 43/102 patients had nodal (376 lesions) and distant metastases (406 lesions), respectively. Eight patients had hematological neoplasm. No malignant oncological diseases were detected in the remaining 13 patients. A total of 145 non-oncological lesions and benign tumors in 52/123 patients were detected incidentally. [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT demonstrated a significantly higher uptake and detection rate for the primary (SUVmax 10.98 ± 5.83 vs. 8.36 ± 6.43, p < 0.001; sensitivity 97.67 vs. 84.89%; and accuracy 96.59 vs. 82.95%, X2 = 0.538, p = 0.021), nodal (SUVmax 10.50 ± 5.98 vs. 8.20 ± 6.29, p = 0.011; sensitivity 97.59 vs. 84.72%; and accuracy 97.34 vs. 84.31%, X2 = 2.067, p < 0.001), and distant metastatic lesions (SUVmax 9.64 ± 6.45 vs. 6.74 ± 4.83; p < 0.001; sensitivity 98.01 vs. 65.59%; and accuracy 97.04 vs. 65.51%, X2 = 4.897, p < 0.001) of solid tumor than did [18F]FDG PET/CT. [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT demonstrated a lower activity (SUVmax: 6.84 ± 4.67 vs. 13.09 ± 7.29, p < 0.001) and detection rate (sensitivity 50.65 vs. 96.75%, and accuracy 51.28 vs. 95.51%, X2 = 5.166, p < 0.001) for multiple myeloma and lymphoma compared to [18F]FDG PET/CT. [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT PET/CT demonstrated a comparative activity (SUVmax 6.40 ± 3.95 vs. 5.74 ± 15.78, p = 0.729) and detection efficacy (sensitivity 86.52 vs. 72.34%, and accuracy 84.83 vs. 72.41%, X2 = 9.460, p = 0.007) for non-oncological lesion and benign tumor detection. CONCLUSIONS: Except for myeloma and lymphoma, [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT showed a superior detection efficacy for detecting various primary and metastatic lesions than [18F]FDG PET/CT. A comparative detection utility for non-oncological lesion was obtained with both tracers. [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 could be used as a broad-spectrum tumor and inflammatory imaging agent in the clinical especially for various solid tumors and non-oncological lesions.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the detection performance of [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT in the patients with various oncological and non-oncological lesions. METHODS: A total of 123 patients underwent contemporaneous [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT were included in this prospective study. The maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) was measured to compare oncological and non-oncological lesion uptake. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy of [18F]FDG and [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT for detecting primary, metastatic, and non-oncological lesions were calculated and compared to evaluate the detection efficacy. RESULTS: The study subjects consisted of 123 patients (69 men and 54 women; mean age 56.11 ± 11.94 years). Among the 102 patients with either newly diagnosed (82 patients) or previously treated solid tumor (20 patients), a total of 88 solid primary malignant tumors in 84/102 patients were detected. Two patients had two primary tumors each and 1 patient had three primary tumors. Among them, 58/102 and 43/102 patients had nodal (376 lesions) and distant metastases (406 lesions), respectively. Eight patients had hematological neoplasm. No malignant oncological diseases were detected in the remaining 13 patients. A total of 145 non-oncological lesions and benign tumors in 52/123 patients were detected incidentally. [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT demonstrated a significantly higher uptake and detection rate for the primary (SUVmax 10.98 ± 5.83 vs. 8.36 ± 6.43, p < 0.001; sensitivity 97.67 vs. 84.89%; and accuracy 96.59 vs. 82.95%, X2 = 0.538, p = 0.021), nodal (SUVmax 10.50 ± 5.98 vs. 8.20 ± 6.29, p = 0.011; sensitivity 97.59 vs. 84.72%; and accuracy 97.34 vs. 84.31%, X2 = 2.067, p < 0.001), and distant metastatic lesions (SUVmax 9.64 ± 6.45 vs. 6.74 ± 4.83; p < 0.001; sensitivity 98.01 vs. 65.59%; and accuracy 97.04 vs. 65.51%, X2 = 4.897, p < 0.001) of solid tumor than did [18F]FDG PET/CT. [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT demonstrated a lower activity (SUVmax: 6.84 ± 4.67 vs. 13.09 ± 7.29, p < 0.001) and detection rate (sensitivity 50.65 vs. 96.75%, and accuracy 51.28 vs. 95.51%, X2 = 5.166, p < 0.001) for multiple myeloma and lymphoma compared to [18F]FDG PET/CT. [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT PET/CT demonstrated a comparative activity (SUVmax 6.40 ± 3.95 vs. 5.74 ± 15.78, p = 0.729) and detection efficacy (sensitivity 86.52 vs. 72.34%, and accuracy 84.83 vs. 72.41%, X2 = 9.460, p = 0.007) for non-oncological lesion and benign tumor detection. CONCLUSIONS: Except for myeloma and lymphoma, [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT showed a superior detection efficacy for detecting various primary and metastatic lesions than [18F]FDG PET/CT. A comparative detection utility for non-oncological lesion was obtained with both tracers. [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 could be used as a broad-spectrum tumor and inflammatory imaging agent in the clinical especially for various solid tumors and non-oncological lesions.
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: Toru Kimura; James Monslow; Astero Klampatsa; Michael Leibowitz; Jing Sun; Maria Liousia; Patrick Woodruff; Edmund Moon; Leslie Todd; Ellen Puré; Steven M Albelda Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 5.464
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: Jennifer M Milner; Lara Kevorkian; David A Young; Debra Jones; Robin Wait; Simon T Donell; Emma Barksby; Angela M Patterson; Jim Middleton; Benjamin F Cravatt; Ian M Clark; Andrew D Rowan; Timothy E Cawston Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2006-01-03 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Stefan Bauer; Michael C Jendro; Andreas Wadle; Sascha Kleber; Frank Stenner; Robert Dinser; Anja Reich; Erica Faccin; Stefan Gödde; Harald Dinges; Ulf Müller-Ladner; Christoph Renner Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2006 Impact factor: 5.156
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: Shumao Zhang; Wei Wang; Tingting Xu; Haoyuan Ding; Yi Li; Huipan Liu; Yinxue Huang; Lin Liu; Tao Du; Yan Zhao; Yue Chen; Lin Qiu Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 5.738