Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of [18F]FDG and [68 Ga]pentixafor PET/CT in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to explore the feasibility of [68 Ga]pentixafor positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

Procedures

This prospective study included patients with NPC who underwent [68 Ga]pentixafor PET/CT and 2-[18F]fuoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) PET/CT within one week between November 2022 and March 2023. The [68 Ga]pentixafor and [18F]FDG uptakes in primary and metastatic lesions were measured and compared.

Results

Twenty-five participants (21 patients for initial stage and four patients for recurrence detection) were enrolled in our study. The participants underwent [18F]FDG PET/CT and [68 Ga]pentixafor PET/CT. [68 Ga]pentixafor PET/CT had the same detection rate as [18F]FDG for primary tumor (96% vs. 96%). The [68 Ga]pentixafor maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) and target-to-background ratio (TBR) of primary tumors were lower than those of [18F]FDG (SUVmax: 8.13 ± 2.78 vs. 14.25 ± 6.45; P < 0.01; TBR: 5.17 ± 2.14 vs. 9.81 ± 5.30, P < 0.01). The difference between tumor volume of [68 Ga]pentixafor (TVpentixafor) and tumor volume of [18F]FDG (TVFDG) showed no significance (median: 16.01 vs. 9.56, P = 0.332). In the detection of suspected metastatic cervical lymph nodes (CLNs), [68 Ga]pentixafor PET possessed a lower SUVmax than [18F]FDG PET/CT (SUVmax: 6.86 ± 2.63 vs. 10.39 ± 5.28, P < 0.01), but there was no significant difference in the detection rate between [68 Ga]pentixafor and [18F]FDG PET/CT (96 vs. 98, P = 0.613).

Conclusions

[68 Ga]pentixafor is a promising imaging tracer for detecting primary and metastatic NPC. [68 Ga]pentixafor PET/CT is comparable to [18F]FDG PET/CT in the detection rate of primary tumors and metastatic cervical lymph nodes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma, but [68 Ga]pentixafor uptake was heterogeneous. [68 Ga]pentixafor PET/CT may help select patients most likely to benefit from CXCR4-directed endoradiotherapy.

Clinical trial registration No.: ChiCTR2200065902

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chen YP, Chan ATC, Le QT, Blanchard P, Sun Y, Ma J (2019) Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Lancet 394:64–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Li WF, Sun Y, Chen M et al (2012) Locoregional extension patterns of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and suggestions for clinical target volume delineation. Chin J Cancer 31:579–587

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Tang LL, Chen WQ, Xue WQ et al (2016) Global trends in incidence and mortality of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Lett 374:22–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wei KR, Zheng RS, Zhang SW, Liang ZH, Ou ZX, Chen WQ (2014) Nasopharyngeal carcinoma incidence and mortality in China in 2010. Chin J Cancer 33:381–387

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. King AD, Vlantis AC, Bhatia KS et al (2011) Primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma: diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging versus that of endoscopy and endoscopic biopsy. Radiology 258:531–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yen TC, Chang YC, Chan SC et al (2005) Are dual-phase 18F-FDG PET scans necessary in nasopharyngeal carcinoma to assess the primary tumour and loco-regional nodes? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:541–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chua ML, Ong SC, Wee JT et al (2009) Comparison of 4 modalities for distant metastasis staging in endemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Head Neck 31:346–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu FY, Chang JT, Wang HM et al (2006) [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is more sensitive than skeletal scintigraphy for detecting bone metastasis in endemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma at initial staging. J Clin Oncol 24:599–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu FY, Lin CY, Chang JT et al (2007) 18F-FDG PET can replace conventional work-up in primary M staging of nonkeratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 48:1614–1619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Xiao BB, Chen QY, Sun XS et al (2021) Low value of whole-body dual-modality [18f]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in primary staging of stage I-II nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a nest case-control study. Eur Radiol 31:5222–5233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ng SH, Chan SC, Yen TC et al (2009) Staging of untreated nasopharyngeal carcinoma with PET/CT: comparison with conventional imaging work-up. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:12–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen WS, Li JJ, Hong L, Xing ZB, Wang F, Li CQ (2016) Comparison of MRI, CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of local and metastatic of nasopharyngeal carcinomas: an updated meta analysis of clinical studies. Am J Transl Res 8:4532–4547

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Teicher BA, Fricker SP (2010) CXCL12 (SDF-1)/CXCR4 pathway in cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16:2927–2931

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Derlin T, Hueper K (2018) CXCR4-targeted therapy in breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 19:e370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zong G, Han J, Yue Z, Liu Y, Cui Z, Shi L (2020) Downregulation of miR-204 facilitates the progression of nasopharyngeal carcinoma by targeting CXCR4 through NF-kappaB signaling pathway. J BUON 25:1098–1104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hadebe B, Sathekge MM, Aldous C, Vorster M (2022) Current status of (68)Ga-Pentixafor in solid tumours. Diagnostics (Basel) 12(9):2135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ramachandran A, Krishnaraju VS, Kumar R, Shukla J, Laroya I (2022) Ga-68 chemokine Receptor-4 PET/CT imaging in Schminke type of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Indian J Nucl Med 37:284–285

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. van den Brekel MW, Stel HV, Castelijns JA et al (1990) Cervical lymph node metastasis: assessment of radiologic criteria. Radiology 177:379–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang GY, Liu LZ, Wei WH, Deng YM, Li YZ, Liu XW (2010) Radiologic criteria of retropharyngeal lymph node metastasis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with radiation therapy. Radiology 255:605–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Buck AK, Haug A, Dreher N et al (2022) Imaging of C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4 expression in 690 patients with solid or hematologic neoplasms using (68)Ga-Pentixafor PET. J Nucl Med 63:1687–1692

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dreher N, Hahner S, Fuss CT et al (2023) CXCR4-directed PET/CT with [(68) Ga]Ga-pentixafor in solid tumors-a comprehensive analysis of imaging findings and comparison with histopathology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 51(5):1383–1394

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Watts A, Singh B, Singh H et al (2023) [(68)Ga]Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT imaging for in vivo CXCR4 receptor mapping in different lung cancer histologic sub-types: correlation with quantitative receptors’ density by immunochemistry techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 50:1216–1227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Werner RA, Kircher S, Higuchi T et al (2019) CXCR4-Directed imaging in solid tumors. Front Oncol 9:770

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhi Y, Werner RA, Schirbel A et al (2023) Diagnostic efficacy of C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4-directed PET/CT in newly diagnosed head and neck squamous cell carcinoma - a head-to-head comparison with [(18)F]FDG. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 13:208–216

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Qin N, Zhang Y, Xu L, Liu W, Luo B (2022) Maintenance of Epstein-Barr virus latency through interaction of LMP2A with CXCR4. Arch Virol 167:1947–1959

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yen RF, Chen TH, Ting LL, Tzen KY, Pan MH, Hong RL (2005) Early restaging whole-body (18)F-FDG PET during induction chemotherapy predicts clinical outcome in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:1152–1159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. King AD, Ma BB, Yau YY et al (2008) The impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT on assessment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma at diagnosis. Br J Radiol 81:291–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fischbein NJ, AAssar OS, Caputo GR et al (1998) Clinical utility of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in detecting residual/recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 19:1189–1196

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Tsai MC, Shu YC, Hsu CC et al (2016) False-positive finding of retropharyngeal lymph node recurrence in both fluorine (18)FDG PET and MRI in a patient with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Head Neck 38:E84-86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bouter C, Meller B, Sahlmann CO et al (2018) (68)Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 in chronic infection of the bone: first insights. J Nucl Med 59:320–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kircher M, Tran-Gia J, Kemmer L et al (2020) Imaging inflammation in atherosclerosis with CXCR4-Directed (68)Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT: correlation with (18)F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 61:751–756

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Derlin T, Jaeger B, Jonigk D et al (2021) Clinical molecular imaging of pulmonary CXCR4 expression to predict outcome of pirfenidone treatment in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Chest 159:1094–1106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lapa C, Hanscheid H, Kircher M et al (2019) Feasibility of CXCR4-Directed radioligand therapy in advanced diffuse large B-Cell Lymphoma. J Nucl Med 60:60–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lapa C, Herrmann K, Schirbel A et al (2017) CXCR4-directed endoradiotherapy induces high response rates in extramedullary relapsed Multiple Myeloma. Theranostics 7:1589–1597

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Habringer S, Lapa C, Herhaus P et al (2018) Dual targeting of acute leukemia and supporting niche by CXCR4-Directed theranostics. Theranostics 8:369–383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Yue Feng, Department of Nuclear Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, for preparation of [68Ga]pentixafor.

Funding

This study was funded by Sichuan Provincial Science and Technology Department (Grant No.2022NSFSC0827), Luzhou Science and Technology Bureau (Grant No.2021CDLZ-9) and Sichuan Science and Technology Program (Grant No.2022YFS0608).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China

    Mengna Liu, Xi Chen, Haoyuan Ding, Qiaoqiao Shu, Yue Chen & Liang Cai

  2. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Luzhou, Sichuan, China

    Mengna Liu, Xi Chen, Haoyuan Ding, Qiaoqiao Shu, Yue Chen & Liang Cai

  3. Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China

    Mengna Liu, Xi Chen, Haoyuan Ding, Qiaoqiao Shu, Yue Chen & Liang Cai

  4. Department of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China

    Yun Zheng

Authors
  1. Mengna Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xi Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haoyuan Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qiaoqiao Shu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yun Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yue Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Liang Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ML, XC and HD contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by ML, XC, HD, QS, YZ, YC and LC. ML and XC processed and analyzed the data. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ML and XC, and HD reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yun Zheng or Liang Cai.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Mengna Liu, Xi Chen and Haoyuan Ding contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, M., Chen, X., Ding, H. et al. Comparison of [18F]FDG and [68 Ga]pentixafor PET/CT in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. Mol Imaging Biol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-024-01913-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-024-01913-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation