Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 and [18F]-FDG for the detection of primary and metastatic lesions in patients with gastric cancer: a bicentric retrospective study

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

Abstract

Introduction

The low sensitivity of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]-FDG) for the diagnosis of gastric cancer limits its application. In this study, we aimed to investigate the potential advantage of [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 over [18F]-FDG in the evaluation of gastric cancer.

Methods

This was a bicentric retrospective analysis of a prospective parent study (clinical trial: HS-KY-2020–826 (Huashan Hospital) and DF-2020–102 (Shanghai East Hospital)). Thirty-eight patients with gastric cancer (31 with adenocarcinoma and 7 with signet ring cell carcinoma) were included in this study. All of the participants underwent [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 and [18F]-FDG imaging by positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) or PET/magnetic resonance (MR). The scans were interpreted by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians, and the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was calculated. Histopathological findings obtained from biopsy or resected surgical specimens were used as a reference for the final diagnosis.

Results

For the detection of primary gastric cancer, the sensitivities of [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 PET and [18F]-FDG PET were 100% (38/38) and 82% (31/38), respectively (P = 0.016). Four cases of adenocarcinoma and three cases of signet ring cell carcinoma were missed by [18F]-FDG PET. The mean SUVmax of [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 in tumours greater than 4 cm (11.0 ± 4.5) was higher than that in tumours less than 4 cm (4.5 ± 3.2) (P = 0.0015). The mean SUVmax of [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 was higher in T2–4 tumours (9.7 ± 4.4) than in T1 tumours (3.1 ± 1.5) (P = 0.0002). For the detection of metastatic lesions, the sensitivities of [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 PET and [18F]-FDG PET in 10 patients with regional lymph node metastasis and distant metastasis were 6/10 and 5/10, respectively.

Conclusion

In this selected cohort, [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 PET had a superior detection rate than [18F]-FDG PET for primary gastric cancer. [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 PET could provide better performance with regard to gastric cancer diagnosis and staging. Prospective clinical trials are warranted.

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:115–32. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF. Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future directions. Radiology. 2006;238:405–22. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2382041977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Endo K, Oriuchi N, Higuchi T, Iida Y, Hanaoka H, Miyakubo M, et al. PET and PET/CT using 18F-FDG in the diagnosis and management of cancer patients. Int J Clin Oncol. 2006;11:286–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-006-0595-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kelloff GJ, Hoffman JM, Johnson B, Scher HI, Siegel BA, Cheng EY, et al. Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:2785–808. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-04-2626.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaneko Y, Murray WK, Link E, Hicks RJ, Duong C. Improving patient selection for 18F-FDG PET scanning in the staging of gastric cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:523–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.150946.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Herrmann K, Ott K, Buck AK, Lordick F, Wilhelm D, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Imaging gastric cancer with PET and the radiotracers 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG: a comparative analysis. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1945–50. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.044867.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mochiki E, Kuwano H, Katoh H, Asao T, Oriuchi N, Endo K. Evaluation of 18F–2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography for gastric cancer. World J Surg. 2004;28:247–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-003-7191-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. De Potter T, Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Penninckx F, Filez L, Bormans G, et al. Whole-body PET with FDG for the diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:525–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-001-0743-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA, Becker K, Link T, Siewert JR, et al. FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:288–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-002-1029-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kratochwil C, Flechsig P, Lindner T, Abderrahim L, Altmann A, Mier W, et al. 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT: tracer uptake in 28 different kinds of cancer. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:801–5. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.227967.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Giesel F, Adeberg S, Syed M, Lindner T, Jimenez LD, Mavriopoulou E, et al. FAPI-74 PET/CT using either 18F-AlF or cold-kit 68Ga-labeling: biodistribution, radiation dosimetry and tumor delineation in lung cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(2):201–7. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.245084.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lindner T, Loktev A, Altmann A, Giesel F, Kratochwil C, Debus J, et al. Development of quinoline-based theranostic ligands for the targeting of fibroblast activation protein. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1415–22. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.210443.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Giesel FL, Kratochwil C, Lindner T, Marschalek MM, Loktev A, Lehnert W, et al. 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT: biodistribution and preliminary dosimetry estimate of 2 DOTA-containing FAP-targeting agents in patients with various cancers. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:386–92. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.215913.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen H, Zhao L, Ruan D, Pang Y, Hao B, Dai Y, et al. Usefulness of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in patients presenting with inconclusive [18F]FDG PET/CT findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(1):73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04940-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shi X, Xing H, Yang X, Li F, Yao S, Zhang H, et al. Fibroblast imaging of hepatic carcinoma with 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT: a pilot study in patients with suspected hepatic nodules. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(1):196–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04882-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koerber SA, Staudinger F, Kratochwil C, Adeberg S, Haefner MF, Ungerechts G, et al. The role of FAPI-PET/CT for patients with malignancies of the lower gastrointestinal tract-first clinical experience. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(9):1331–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.237016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang RF, Zhang LH, Shan LH, Sun WG, Chai CC, Wu HM, et al. Effects of the fibroblast activation protein on the invasion and migration of gastric cancer. Exp Mol Pathol. 2013;95:350–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhi K, Shen X, Zhang H, Bi J. Cancer-associated fibroblasts are positively correlated with metastatic potential of human gastric cancers. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2010;29:66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-29-66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Pang Y, Huang H, Fu L, Zhao L, Chen H. 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT detects gastric signet-ring cell carcinoma in a patient previously treated for prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2020;45:632–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000003099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Loktev A, Lindner T, Mier W, Debus J, Altmann A, Jäger D, et al. A tumor-imaging method targeting cancer-associated fibroblasts. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1423–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.210435.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen H, Pang Y, Wu J, Zhao L, Hao B, Wu J, et al. Comparison of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F] FDG PET/CT for the diagnosis of primary and metastatic lesions in patients with various types of cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:1820–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04769-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shi X, Xing H, Yang X, Li F, Yao S, Congwei J, et al. Comparison of PET imaging of activated fibroblasts and 18F-FDG for diagnosis of primary hepatic tumours: a prospective pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(5):1593–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05070-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.21492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hicks RJ, Roselt PJ, Kallur KG, Tothill RW, Mileshkin L. FAPI PET/CT: Will It End the Hegemony of (18)F-FDG in Oncology? J Nucl Med. 2021;62:296–302. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.256271.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kawamura T, Kusakabe T, Sugino T, Watanabe K, Fukuda T, Nashimoto A, et al. Expression of glucose transporter-1 in human gastric carcinoma: association with tumor aggressiveness, metastasis, and patient survival. Cancer. 2001;92:634–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20010801)92:3%3c634::aid-cncr1364%3e3.0.co;2-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nakajo M, Kajiya Y, Tani A, Jinguji M, Nakajo M, Yoshiura T. FLT-PET/CT diagnosis of primary and metastatic nodal lesions of gastric cancer: comparison with FDG-PET/CT. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016;41:1891–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0788-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wu CX, Zhu ZH. Diagnosis and evaluation of gastric cancer by positron emission tomography. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:4574–85. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i16.4574.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Filik M, Kir KM, Aksel B, Soyda Ç, Özkan E, Küçük ÖN, et al. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the primary staging of gastric cancer. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2015;24:15–20. https://doi.org/10.4274/mirt.26349.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ha TK, Choi YY, Song SY, Kwon SJ. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and computed tomography is not accurate in preoperative staging of gastric cancer. J Korean Surg Soc. 2011;81:104–10. https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2011.81.2.104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Sawaki K, Kanda M, Miwa T, Umeda S, Tanaka H, Tanaka C, et al. Troponin I2 as a specific biomarker for prediction of peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2083–90. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6480-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Choi JY, Shim KN, Kim SE, Jung HK, Jung SA, Yoo K. The clinical value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography/computed tomography for predicting regional lymph node metastasis and non-curative surgery in primary gastric carcinoma. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2014;64:340–7. https://doi.org/10.4166/kjg.2014.64.6.340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lim JS, Kim MJ, Yun MJ, Oh YT, Kim JH, Hwang HS, et al. Comparison of CT and 18F-FDG pet for detecting peritoneal metastasis on the preoperative evaluation for gastric carcinoma. Korean J Radiol. 2006;7:249–56. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2006.7.4.249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the excellent technical assistance of the staff at the PET Center, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, and the staff at the Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University.

Funding

This work was supported by Startup Fund of Huashan Hospital, Fudan University (2017QD081), Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty (shslczdzk03402), Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (No. 2018SHZDZX01), and Shanghai Municipal Health Commission Fund (202040420).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Donglang Jiang, Xing Chen, Zhiwen You, and Hao Wang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PET Center, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200040, China

    Donglang Jiang, Hao Wang, Xiuming Li, Shuhua Ren, Qi Huang, Yihui Guan & Fang Xie

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanghai East Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200120, China

    Xing Chen, Zhiwen You & Jun Zhao

  3. Department of General Surgery, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200040, China

    Hao Wang

  4. Department of Pathology, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Xiaoyun Zhang

  5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Chinese Traditional Medicine, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Fengchun Hua

Authors
  1. Donglang Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xing Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhiwen You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaoyun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiuming Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shuhua Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Qi Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Fengchun Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yihui Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jun Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Fang Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FX, JZ, YG, and FH designed this study and organized the data collection; FX, DJ, XC, ZY, HW, XZ, XL, SR, and QH collected the data; DJ, HW, and QH processed and analysed the data; FX and DJ led the manuscript writing; and all authors reviewed and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Fengchun Hua, Yihui Guan, Jun Zhao or Fang Xie.

Ethics declarations

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Research involving human participants

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethics standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethics standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Oncology—Digestive tract

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 36.6 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, D., Chen, X., You, Z. et al. Comparison of [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 and [18F]-FDG for the detection of primary and metastatic lesions in patients with gastric cancer: a bicentric retrospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49, 732–742 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05441-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05441-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation