(68)Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/MR in the Evaluation of Gastric Carcinomas: Comparison with (18)F-FDG PET/CT.

We sought to evaluate the performance of 68Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 ( 68 Ga-FAPI) PET/MR for the diagnosis of primary tumor and metastatic lesions in patients with gastric carcinomas and to compare the results with those of 18F-FDG PET/CT. Methods: Twenty patients with histologically proven gastric carcinomas were recruited, and each patient underwent both 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68 Ga-FAPI PET/MR. A visual scoring system was established to compare the detectability of primary tumors and metastases in different organs or regions (the peritoneum, abdominal lymph nodes, supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes, liver, ovary, bone, and other tissues). The original SUVmax and normalized SUVmax (calculated by dividing a lesion's original SUVmax with the SUVmean of the descending aorta) of selected lesions on both 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-FAPI PET/MR were measured. Original/normalized SUVmax-FAPI and SUVmax-FDG were compared for patient-based (including a single lesion with the highest activity uptake in each organ/region) and lesion-based (including all lesions [≤5] or the 5 lesions with highest activity [>5]) analyses, respectively. Results: The 20 recruited patients (median age: 56.0 y; range: 29-70 y) included 9 men and 11 women, 14 patients for initial staging and 6 for recurrence detection. 68Ga-FAPI PET was superior to 18F-FDG PET for primary tumor detection (100.00% [14/14] vs. 71.43% [10/14]; P = 0.034), and the former had higher tracer uptake levels (P < 0.05). 68Ga-FAPI PET was superior to 18F-FDG PET in both patient-based and lesion-based evaluation except for the metastatic lesions in supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes and ovaries. Additionally, multiple sequences of MR images were beneficial for the interpretation of hepatic metastases in 3 patients, uterine and rectal metastases in 1 patient, ovarian lesions in 7 patients, and osseous metastases in 2 patients. Conclusion:68Ga-FAPI PET/MR outperformed 18F-FDG PET/CT in visualizing the primary and most metastatic lesions of gastric cancer and might be a promising method, with the potential of replacing 18F-FDG PET/CT.

Qin C ，Shao F ，Gai Y ，Liu Q ，Ruan W ，Liu F ，Hu F ，Lan X ... -  《-》

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

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. 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. [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. [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.

Lin R ，Lin Z ，Chen Z ，Zheng S ，Zhang J ，Zang J ，Miao W ... -  《-》

Superiority of [(68)Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[(18)F]FAPI-42 PET/CT to [(18)F]FDG PET/CT in delineating the primary tumor and peritoneal metastasis in initial gastric cancer.

This study aimed to compare [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT with [18F]FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of initial gastric cancer. We retrospectively compared [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT with [18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with initial gastric cancer from September 2020 to March 2021. Lesion detectability and the uptake of lesions quantified by the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and target-to-background ratio (TBR) were compared between the two modalities using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Mann-Whitney U test, and McNemar's chi-square test. A total of 61 patients (37 males, aged 23-81 years) were included, of which 22 underwent radical gastrectomy. For primary lesions, higher uptake of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 was observed compared to [18F]FDG (median SUVmax, 14.60 vs 4.35, p < 0.001), resulting in higher positive detection using [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT than [18F]FDG PET/CT (95.1% vs 73.8%, p < 0.001), particularly for tumors with signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) (96.4% vs 57.1%, p < 0.001). [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT detected more positive lymph nodes than [18F]FDG PET/CT (637 vs 407). However, both modalities underestimated N staging compared to pathological N staging. [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT showed a higher sensitivity (92.3% vs 53.8%, p = 0.002) and peritoneal cancer index score (18 vs 3, p < 0.001) in peritoneum metastasis and other suspect metastases compared to [18F]FDG PET/CT. Our findings indicate that [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT outperformed [18F]FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of primary tumors with SRCC and peritoneum metastasis in initial gastric cancer. However, no clinically useful improvement was seen in N staging. • The uptake of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 in primary tumor and metastasis was intensely higher than that of [18F]FDG (p < 0.001) in 61 patients with initial gastric cancer. • [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT had a higher sensitivity detection in primary tumors (95.1% vs 73.8%, p < 0.001) and peritoneal metastases (92.3% vs 53.8%, p = 0.002) than [18F]FDG PET/CT. • [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT depicted more positive lymph nodes than [18F]FDG PET/CT (637 vs 407); however, both underestimated N staging compared to pathological N staging.

Fu L ，Huang S ，Wu H ，Dong Y ，Xie F ，Wu R ，Zhou K ，Tang G ，Zhou W ... -  《-》

The potential utility of [(68) Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 as a novel broad-spectrum oncological and non-oncological imaging agent-comparison with [(18)F]FDG.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Lan L ，Liu H ，Wang Y ，Deng J ，Peng D ，Feng Y ，Wang L ，Chen Y ，Qiu L ... -  《-》

Head-to-head comparison of [(68)Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [(18)F]FDG PET/CT for the evaluation of tonsil cancer and lymph node metastases: a single-centre retrospective study.

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging for primary lesions and metastatic lymph nodes in patients with tonsil cancer. Twenty-one tonsil cancer patients who underwent [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT scans within two weeks in our centre were retrospectively enrolled. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) of the two tracers were compared by using the Mann‒Whitney U test. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the two methods for diagnosing metastatic lymph nodes were analysed. In detecting primary lesions, the efficiency was higher for [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT (20/22) than for [18F]FDG PET/CT (9/22). Although [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 uptake (SUVmax, 5.03 ± 4.06) was lower than [18F]FDG uptake (SUVmax, 7.90 ± 4.84, P = 0.006), [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 improved the distinction between the primary tumor and contralateral normal tonsillar tissue. The TBR was significantly higher for [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT (3.19 ± 2.06) than for [18F]FDG PET/CT (1.89 ± 1.80) (p < 0.001). In lymph node analysis, SUVmax and TBR were not significantly different between [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT (7.67 ± 5.88 vs. 8.36 ± 6.15, P = 0.498 and 5.56 ± 4.02 vs. 4.26 ± 3.16, P = 0.123, respectively). The specificity and accuracy of [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT were higher than those of [18F]FDG PET/CT in diagnosing metastatic cervical lymph nodes (all P < 0.05). The availability of [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 complements the diagnostic results of [18F]FDG by improving the detection rate of primary lesions and the diagnostic accuracy of cervical metastatic lymph nodes in tonsil cancer compared to [18F]FDG.

Ji M ，Ma G ，Liu C ，Gu B ，Du X ，Ou X ，Xu X ，Song S ，Yang Z ... -  《-》