Rong Lin1, Zefang Lin1, Zhenying Chen1, Shan Zheng1, Jiaying Zhang1, Jie Zang2, Weibing Miao3,4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, No. 20 Chazhong Road, Taijiang District, Fuzhou, 350005, Fujian Province, China. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, No. 20 Chazhong Road, Taijiang District, Fuzhou, 350005, Fujian Province, China. 15901495106@163.com. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, No. 20 Chazhong Road, Taijiang District, Fuzhou, 350005, Fujian Province, China. miaoweibing@126.com. 4. Fujian Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine for Cancer, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350005, Fujian Province, China. miaoweibing@126.com.
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 (SUVmax) and TBR (lesions SUVmax/ascending aorta SUVmean). 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 SUVmax (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.
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 (SUVmax) and TBR (lesions SUVmax/ascending aorta SUVmean). 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 SUVmax (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.
Authors: Elizabeth Smyth; Heiko Schöder; Vivian E Strong; Marinela Capanu; David P Kelsen; Daniel G Coit; Manish A Shah Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Steven J Cohen; R Katherine Alpaugh; Irma Palazzo; Neal J Meropol; André Rogatko; Zhiheng Xu; John P Hoffman; Louis M Weiner; Jonathan D Cheng Journal: Pancreas Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Elizabeth J Hamson; Fiona M Keane; Stefan Tholen; Oliver Schilling; Mark D Gorrell Journal: Proteomics Clin Appl Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: W J Rettig; S L Su; S R Fortunato; M J Scanlan; B K Raj; P Garin-Chesa; J H Healey; L J Old Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1994-08-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Xiongchao Chen; P Hendrik Pretorius; Bo Zhou; Hui Liu; Karen Johnson; Yi-Hwa Liu; Michael A King; Chi Liu Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 5.952