Evaluation of 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancers

被引:0
作者
Xi, Yue [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
Sun, Yuyun [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
Gu, Bingxin [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
Bian, Linjie [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
Song, Shaoli [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Fudan Univ, Shanghai Canc Ctr, Dept Nucl Med, Shanghai 200032, Peoples R China
[2] Fudan Univ, Shanghai Med Coll, Dept Oncol, Shanghai 200032, Peoples R China
[3] Fudan Univ, Ctr Biomed Imaging, Shanghai 200032, Peoples R China
[4] Shanghai Engn Res Ctr Mol Imaging Probes, Shanghai 200032, Peoples R China
[5] Fudan Univ, Key Lab Nucl Phys & Ion Beam Applicat MOE, Shanghai 200433, Peoples R China
[6] Shanghai Proton & Heavy Ion Ctr, Dept Nucl Med, Shanghai 201321, Peoples R China
关键词
(18) F-FDG PET/CT; Colorectal cancer; Peritoneal metastasis; Peritoneal carcinoma index; Ga-68-FAPI PET/CT; PERITONEAL CARCINOMATOSIS; GASTRIC-CANCER; FDG PET/CT; METASTASES;
D O I
10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100848
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of gallium-68-labeled fibroblast activation protein inhibitor positron emission tomography/computed tomography (Ga-68-FAPI PET/CT) and fluorine-18-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT (F-18-FDG PET/CT) for detecting recurrent colorectal cancers (CRCs). Materials and Methods: Fifty-six patients (age: 18-80 years, 31 men and 25 women) with suspected recurrent CRC were enrolled and underwent F-18-FDG PET/CT and Ga-68-FAPI PET/CT sequentially within 1 week. The maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax), tumor-to-background ratio (TBR), and diagnostic accuracy were estimated and compared between the two modalities by using Student's t-test. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare peritoneal carcinoma index (PCI) scores between the two imaging modalities. Results: Ga-68-FAPI PET/CT showed higher sensitivity for detecting recurrence (93 % vs. 79 %); lymph node metastasis (89 % vs. 78 %), particularly peritoneal lymph node metastasis (92 % vs. 63 %); and metastatic implantation on the intestinal wall (100 % vs. 25 %) compared to F-18-FDG PET/CT. However, Ga-68-FAPI PET/CT showed lower sensitivity for detecting bone metastasis (67 % vs. 100 %). The mean SUVmax values of peritoneal metastases and metastatic implantation on the intestinal wall were 4.28 +/- 2.70 and 7.58 +/- 1.66 for F-18-FDG PET/CT and 5.66 +/- 1.97 and 6.70 +/- 0.25 for Ga-68-FAPI PET/CT, respectively. Furthermore, Ga-68-FAPI PET/CT showed significantly higher TBR for peritoneal metastatic lesions (4.22 +/- 1.47 vs. 1.41 +/- 0.89, p < 0.0001) and metastatic implantation on the intestinal wall (5.63 +/- 1.24 vs. 2.20 +/- 0.5, p = 0.02) compared to F-18-FDG PET/CT. For the same patient, Ga-68-FAPI PET/CT yielded a more accurate PCI score and a greater area under the curve value for the receiver operating characteristic curve (p < 0.01) than F-18-FDG PET/CT. Conclusion: Ga-68-FAPI PET/CT was superior to F-18-FDG PET/CT for detecting recurrence and peritoneal metastases. Hence, we propose the combination of these two modalities for better clinical diagnosis and management of patients with CRC.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Head-to-head intra-individual comparison of biodistribution and tumor uptake of 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in cancer patients
    Frederik L. Giesel
    Clemens Kratochwil
    Joel Schlittenhardt
    Katharina Dendl
    Matthias Eiber
    Fabian Staudinger
    Lukas Kessler
    Wolfgang P. Fendler
    Thomas Lindner
    Stefan A. Koerber
    Jens Cardinale
    David Sennung
    Manuel Roehrich
    Juergen Debus
    Mike Sathekge
    Uwe Haberkorn
    Jeremie Calais
    Sebastian Serfling
    Andreas L. Buck
    European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2021, 48 : 4377 - 4385
  • [32] The Added Value of 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary with 18F-FDG-Negative Findings
    Gu, Bingxin
    Xu, Xiaoping
    Zhang, Ji
    Ou, Xiaomin
    Xia, Zuguang
    Guan, Qing
    Hu, Silong
    Yang, Zhongyi
    Song, Shaoli
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2022, 63 (06) : 875 - 881
  • [33] Adenocarcinoma Prostate With Neuroendocrine Differentiation: Potential Utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT Over 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT
    Parida, Girish Kumar
    Tripathy, Sarthak
    Gupta, Shreya Datta
    Singhal, Abhinav
    Kumar, Rakesh
    Bal, Chandrasekhar
    Shamim, Shamim Ahmed
    CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2018, 43 (04) : 248 - 249
  • [34] Combined 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga DOTATATE PET/CT "Superscan" in Metastatic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor
    Chan, Mico
    Schembri, Geoffrey Paul
    CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2017, 42 (02) : 108 - 109
  • [35] 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of POEMS syndrome
    Alberti, M. A.
    Martinez-Yelamos, S.
    Fernandez, A.
    Vidaller, A.
    Narvaez, J. A.
    Cano, L. M.
    Gamez, C.
    Martinez-Matos, J. A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2010, 76 (02) : 180 - 182
  • [36] Tailoring the clinical management of colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET/CT
    Shi, Yang
    Wang, Meiqi
    Zhang, Jiyu
    Xiang, Zheng
    Li, Can
    Zhang, Jingjing
    Ma, Xing
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2022, 12
  • [37] Characterizing Concomitant Follicular Lymphoma and Gastric Carcinoma Using 68Ga-FAPI-04 and 18F-FDG PET/CT
    Chen, Xuetao
    Wei, Maomao
    Wang, Shuailiang
    Yang, Zhi
    Wang, Xuejuan
    CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2022, 47 (01) : 81 - 82
  • [38] Recurrent Subcutaneous Ewing Sarcoma on 18F-FDG PET/CT
    Wu, Junhao
    Liu, Ya
    Gong, Weidong
    Liao, Taiping
    Zhang, Chunyin
    CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2021, 46 (09) : 752 - 753
  • [39] Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic performance between 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhuang, Zixuan
    Zhang, Yang
    Yang, Xuyang
    Deng, Xiangbing
    Wang, Ziqiang
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2024, 49 (09) : 3166 - 3174
  • [40] [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 PET MRI/CT in the evaluation of gastric carcinomas compared with [18F]-FDG PET MRI/CT: a meta-analysis
    Wang, Yawen
    Luo, Wenhao
    Li, Ye
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2023, 28 (01)