Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

[68Ga]Ga‑LNC1007 PET/CT in the evaluation of renal cell carcinoma: comparison with 2-[18F]FDG/[68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the potential efficiency of [68Ga]Ga-LNC1007 with 2-[18F]FDG/[68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT for detecting renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and to explore parameters derived from [68Ga]Ga-LNC1007 PET/CT for discriminating pathological characteristics in RCC.

Methods

Twenty-five RCC patients confirmed by pathology were enrolled in this prospective study. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), mean SUV (SUVmean), gross tumor volume (GTV) and total lesion-tracer (TL-tracer) of lesions were calculated from the corresponding PET/CT images. Pathological characteristics included World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) grade and adverse pathological features (tumor necrosis or sarcomatoid or rhabdoid feature).

Results

[68Ga]Ga-LNC1007 PET/CT showed a higher detection rate for primary lesions than 2-[18F]FDG and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA (LNC1007 vs. FDG: 13/17 vs. 4/17, P = 0.005; LNC1007 vs. PSMA: 9/11 vs. 6/11, P = 0.361). [68Ga]Ga-LNC1007 PET/CT showed higher SUVmax (6.6 vs. 3.7, P = 0.005), SUVmean (4.1 vs. 2.3, P = 0.001) and TBR (2.6 vs. 1.7, P = 0.011) compared with 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT, and it also showed higher TBR (2.9 vs. 0.5, P = 0.003), TBR-delay (2.8 vs. 0.3, P = 0.003), GTV (84.1 vs. 42.9, P = 0.003) and TL-tracer (442.7 vs. 235.8, P = 0.008) compared with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT. SUVmax and TBR derived from [68Ga]Ga-LNC1007 PET/CT could effectively differentiate WHO/ISUP grade (3–4 vs. 1–2) and adverse pathological features (positive vs. negative) (SUVmax: AUC 0.81, P = 0.04; AUC 0.80, P = 0.033; TBR: AUC 0.84, P = 0.026; AUC 0.85, P = 0.014). The SUVmax was positively correlated with the FAP expression, integrin αvβ3 expression and the total expression of FAP and integrin αvβ3 (r = 0.577, P = 0.006, r = 0.701, P < 0.001, and r = 0.702, P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

[68Ga]Ga-LNC1007 is a promising tracer for RCC imaging and can effectively identify aggressive pathological characteristics of RCC.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Joosten SC, Smits KM, Aarts MJ, Melotte V, Koch A, Tjan-Heijnen VC, et al. Epigenetics in renal cell cancer: mechanisms and clinical applications. Nat Rev Urol. 2018;15:430–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-018-0023-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Capitanio U, Bensalah K, Bex A, Boorjian SA, Bray F, Coleman J, et al. Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2019;75:74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Miyakita H, Tokunaga M, Onda H, Usui Y, Kinoshita H, Kawamura N, et al. Significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for detection of renal cell carcinoma and immunohistochemical glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) expression in the cancer. Int J Urol. 2002;9:15–8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2042.2002.00416.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu Y. The place of FDG PET/CT in renal cell carcinoma: value and limitations. Front Oncol. 2016;6:201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2016.00201.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Aide N, Cappele O, Bottet P, Bensadoun H, Regeasse A, Comoz F, et al. Efficiency of [18F]FDG PET in characterising renal cancer and detecting distant metastases: a comparison with CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1236–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1211-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, Tang C, Vela I, Thomas P, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. The Lancet. 2020;395:1208–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30314-7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang SS, Reuter VE, Heston W, Bander NH, Grauer LS, Gaudin PB. Five different anti-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) antibodies confirm PSMA expression in tumor-associated neovasculature. Can Res. 1999;59:3192–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Golan S, Aviv T, Groshar D, Yakimov M, Zohar Y, Prokocimer Y, et al. Dynamic 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for the primary evaluation of localized renal mass: a prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:773–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.251272.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gao J, Xu Q, Fu Y, He K, Zhang C, Zhang Q, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT parameters for discriminating pathological characteristics in primary clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:561–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.251272.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Raveenthiran S, Esler R, Yaxley J, Kyle S. The use of 68Ga-PET/CT PSMA in the staging of primary and suspected recurrent renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:2280–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04432-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hamson EJ, Keane FM, Tholen S, Schilling O, Gorrell MD. Understanding fibroblast activation protein (FAP): substrates, activities, expression and targeting for cancer therapy. Proteomics-Clin Appl. 2014;8:454–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/prca.201300095.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Li M, Younis MH, Zhang Y, Cai W, Lan X. Clinical summary of fibroblast activation protein inhibitor-based radiopharmaceuticals: cancer and beyond. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:2844–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05706-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Pang Y, Zhao L, Luo Z, Hao B, Wu H, Lin Q, et al. Comparison of 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG uptake in gastric, duodenal, and colorectal cancers. Radiology. 2021;298:393–402. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020203275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen X, Hou Y, Tohme M, Park R, Khankaldyyan V, Gonzales-Gomez I, et al. Pegylated Arg-Gly-Asp peptide: 64Cu labeling and PET imaging of brain tumor αvβ3-integrin expression. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1776–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen X, Park R, Tohme M, Shahinian AH, Bading JR, Conti PS. MicroPET and autoradiographic imaging of breast cancer αv-integrin expression using 18F-and 64Cu-labeled RGD peptide. Bioconjug Chem. 2004;15:41–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/bc0300403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zang J, Wen X, Lin R, Zeng X, Wang C, Shi M, et al. Synthesis, preclinical evaluation and radiation dosimetry of a dual targeting PET tracer [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-RGD. Theranostics. 2022;12:7180. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.79144.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Delahunt B, Eble JN, Egevad L, Samaratunga H. Grading of renal cell carcinoma. Histopathology. 2019;74:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13735.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Moch H, Amin MB, Berney DM, Compérat EM, Gill AJ, Hartmann A, et al. The 2022 World Health Organization classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs—part A: renal, penile, and testicular tumours. Eur Urol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.06.016.

  20. Dagher J, Delahunt B, Rioux-Leclercq N, Egevad L, Srigley JR, Coughlin G, et al. Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: validation of World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology grading. Histopathology. 2017;71:918–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Delahunt B, McKenney JK, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, et al. A novel grading system for clear cell renal cell carcinoma incorporating tumor necrosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:311–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e318270f71c.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Khor L-Y, Dhakal HP, Jia X, Reynolds JP, McKenney JK, Rini BI, et al. Tumor necrosis adds prognostically significant information to grade in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:1224–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000000690.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Katz MD, Serrano MF, Grubb RL III, Skolarus TA, Gao F, Humphrey PA, et al. Percent microscopic tumor necrosis and survival after curative surgery for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2010;183:909–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sengupta S, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Frank I, Thompson RH, Webster WS, et al. Histologic coagulative tumor necrosis as a prognostic indicator of renal cell carcinoma aggressiveness. Cancer. 2005;104:511–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. de Peralta-Venturina M, Moch H, Amin M, Tamboli P, Hailemariam S, Mihatsch M, et al. Sarcomatoid differentiation in renal cell carcinoma: a study of 101 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:275–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200103000-00001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pichler R, Compérat E, Klatte T, Pichler M, Loidl W, Lusuardi L, et al. Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features: finally new therapeutic hope? Cancers. 2019;11:422. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11030422.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang BY, Cheville JC, Thompson RH, Lohse CM, Boorjian SA, Leibovich BC, et al. Impact of rhabdoid differentiation on prognosis for patients with grade 4 renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2015;68:5–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Przybycin CG, McKenney JK, Reynolds JP, Campbell S, Zhou M, Karafa MT, et al. Rhabdoid differentiation is associated with aggressive behavior in renal cell carcinoma: a clinicopathologic analysis of 76 cases with clinical follow-up. T Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:1260–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000000251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Verhoeff SR, van Es SC, Boon E, van Helden E, Angus L, Elias SG, et al. Lesion detection by [89Zr] Zr-DFO-girentuximab and [18F] FDG-PET/CT in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1931–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04358-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, Bomanji J, Calais J, Ceci F, et al. PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM procedure guideline/SNMMI procedure standard for prostate cancer imaging 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:1466–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-06089-w.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhao L, Wen X, Xu W, Pang Y, Sun L, Wu X, et al. Clinical Evaluation of 68Ga-FAPI-RGD for Imaging of Fibroblast Activation Protein and Integrin αvβ3 in Various Cancer Types. J Nucl Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.265383.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lan L, Zhang S, Xu T, Liu H, Wang W, Feng Y, et al. Prospective comparison of 68Ga-FAPI versus 18F-FDG PET/CT for tumor staging in biliary tract cancers. Radiology. 2022;304:648–57. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.213118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lin R, Lin Z, Chen Z, Zheng S, Zhang J, Zang J, et al. [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the evaluation of gastric cancer: comparison with [18F]FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:2960–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05799-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Xie F, Fu L, Zhou W. Superiority of 68Ga-FAPI-04 in Delineation of Soft Tissue and Liver Metastases in Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma for Restaging. Clin Nucl Med. 2022;47:e758–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000004374.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dong A, Yang B, Bai Y, Zuo C. 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in a Small Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma With Widespread Metastases. Clin Nucl Med. 2023;48:457–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000004607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Civan C, Isik EG, Karadogan S, Sanli Y, Kuyumcu S. 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Metastatic Papillary Renal Cell Cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2022:10.1097. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000004587.

  37. Dong A, Yang Q, Hua M, Cheng C, Zuo C. Lipid-poor renal angiomyolipoma mimicking renal cell carcinoma on 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2022;47:991–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000004297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Toriihara A, Duan H, Thompson HM, Park S, Hatami N, Baratto L, et al. 18F-FPPRGD2 PET/CT in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1518–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04295-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Withofs N, Signolle N, Somja J, Lovinfosse P, Nzaramba EM, Mievis F, et al. 18F-FPRGD2 PET/CT imaging of integrin αvβ3 in renal carcinomas: correlation with histopathology. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:361–4. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.149021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang G, Li L, Wang J, Zang J, Chen J, Xiao Y, et al. Head-to-head comparison of [68Ga]Ga-P16-093 and 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:1499–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-06101-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sasikumar A, Joy A, Nanabala R, Unni M, Padmanabhan T. Complimentary pattern of uptake in 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga–prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT in a case of metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e517–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000001394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Siva S, Callahan J, Pryor D, Martin J, Lawrentschuk N, Hofman MS. Utility of 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen–positron emission tomography in diagnosis and response assessment of recurrent renal cell carcinoma. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2017;61:372–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sandgren K, Johansson L, Axelsson J, Jonsson J, Ögren M, Ögren M, et al. Radiation dosimetry of [68Ga]PSMA-11 in low-risk prostate cancer patients. EJNMMI physics. 2019;6:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-018-0239-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Quinn B, Dauer Z, Pandit-Taskar N, Schoder H, Dauer LT. Radiation dosimetry of 18F-FDG PET/CT: incorporating exam-specific parameters in dose estimates. BMC Med Imaging. 2016;16:41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-016-0143-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Judmann B, Braun D, Wängler B, Schirrmacher R, Fricker G, Wängler C. Current state of radiolabeled heterobivalent peptidic ligands in tumor imaging and therapy. Pharmaceuticals. 2020;13:173. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph13080173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Summer D, Rangger C, Klingler M, Laverman P, Franssen GM, Lechner BE, et al. Exploiting the concept of multivalency with 68Ga-and 89Zr-labelled fusarinine C-minigastrin bioconjugates for targeting CCK2R expression. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018;2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3171794.

  47. Liu S, Liu Z, Chen K, Yan Y, Watzlowik P, Wester H-J, et al. 18F-Labeled Galacto and PEGylated RGD Dimers for PET Imaging of αvβ3 Integrin Expression. Mol Imaging Biol. 2010;12:530–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-009-0284-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Dijkgraaf I, Yim C-B, Franssen GM, Schuit RC, Luurtsema G, Liu S, et al. PET imaging of αvβ3 integrin expression in tumours with 68Ga-labelled mono-, di- and tetrameric RGD peptides. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:128–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1615-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded in part by the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (No.2023J01568, No.2022J01694), Joint Funds for the Innovation of Science and Technology, Fujian Province (No. 2021Y9134, No.2021Y9094), Fujian Provincial Health Technology Project (No.2021QNA031) and Startup Fund for Scientific Research of Fujian Medical University (No.2020QH1044).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Rong Lin and Chao Wang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350005, Fujian Province, China

    Rong Lin, Chao Wang, Shaoming Chen, Yun Yang, Jiaying Zhang, Fuqi Xu, Jie Zang & Weibing Miao

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Changle District, No. 999 Huashan Road, Fuzhou, 350212, China

    Rong Lin, Chao Wang, Shaoming Chen, Yun Yang, Jiaying Zhang, Fuqi Xu, Jie Zang & Weibing Miao

  3. Department of Urology, Urology Research Institute, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350005, China

    Shaohao Chen, Tingting Lin & Hai Cai

  4. Departments of Diagnostic Radiology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 119074, Singapore

    Jingjing Zhang & Xiaoyuan Chen

  5. Clinical Imaging Research Centre, Centre for Translational Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117599, Singapore

    Jingjing Zhang & Xiaoyuan Chen

  6. Nanomedicine Translational Research Program, NUS Center for Nanomedicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117597, Singapore

    Jingjing Zhang & Xiaoyuan Chen

  7. Departments of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117597, Singapore

    Xiaoyuan Chen

  8. Fujian Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine for Cancer, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350005, Fujian Province, China

    Weibing Miao

Authors
  1. Rong Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shaohao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tingting Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hai Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shaoming Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yun Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jiaying Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Fuqi Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jingjing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Xiaoyuan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jie Zang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Weibing Miao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jingjing Zhang, Xiaoyuan Chen, Jie Zang or Weibing Miao.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures involving human participants were carried out 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. This article does not contain any experiments with animals.

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.

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

Lin, R., Wang, C., Chen, S. et al. [68Ga]Ga‑LNC1007 PET/CT in the evaluation of renal cell carcinoma: comparison with 2-[18F]FDG/[68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 51, 535–547 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-023-06436-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-023-06436-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation