<sup>68</sup> Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT for cancer imaging: Results of a single-center, prospective, interventional, single-arm clinical trial.
Abstract
457 Background: Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is highly expressed on tumor-associated fibroblasts. FAP-directed radioligand positron emission tomography ( 68 Ga-FAPI-46 PET) is a novel tool for cancer imaging. However, its diagnostic performance, especially in genitourinary (GU) cancers, is still unclear. Here, we aim to compare diagnostic performance of 68 Ga-FAPI-46 and 18 F-FDG PET, validated by histopathology. Methods: Patients (pts) at initial staging/restaging with (a) proven or suspected malignancy, (b) any tumor diameter > 1 cm, (c) planned or performed biopsy/surgery within 8 weeks prior to or after 68 Ga-FAPI-46 PET, and (d) no prior external beam radiation or systemic tumor therapy within 1 month underwent 68 Ga-FAPI-46 and clinical 18 F-FDG PET on subsequent days. For comparison, patient-based and region-based (local, nodal, distant organ or soft tissue, bone) image analysis was performed by three blinded nuclear medicine physicians, separate for each PET modality. Positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity (SE) were evaluated based on histopathologic results, and compared in the subgroups of GU cancers, sarcoma, and others. Inter-reader reproducibility was assessed using Fleiss‘ kappa. Results: A total of n=158 pts (median age: 62 years, male/female: n=101 (63.9%)/57 (36.1%)) were enrolled. 155 (98.1%)/152 (96.2%) pts underwent 68 Ga-FAPI-46/ 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Histopathologic validation was available in n=145 (91.8%) pts. N=54 (34.2%)/28 (17.7%)/76 (48.1%) pts were diagnosed with GU cancers/sarcoma/others. Patient-based PPV/SE for 68 Ga-FAPI-46 ( 18 F-FDG) PET were 94/72% (97/71%) for GU cancers, 100/96% (100/96%) for sarcoma, and 100/91% (100/88%) for others. Region-based PPV/SE for 68 Ga-FAPI-46 ( 18 F-FDG) PET were 93/71% (97/70%) for GU cancers, 100/94% (97/90%) for sarcoma, and 99/90% (93/85%) for others. Patient-based inter-reader reproducibility for 68 Ga-FAPI-46 ( 18 F-FDG) PET was 0.71 (0.43) for GU cancers, 1.0 (0.21) for sarcoma, and 0.6 (0.53) for others. Conclusions: 68 Ga-FAPI-46 and 18 F-FDG PET demonstrate similar accuracy for tumor detection and localization of GU cancers. However, inter-reader reproducibility was superior for 68 Ga-FAPI-46 (substantial agreement) compared to 18 F-FDG PET (moderate agreement). Clinical trial information: NCT05160051 . Patient characteristics. All patients n=158 All regions n=186 Diagnosis n (pts) % (pts) n (regions) % (regions) Genitourinary CancersRenal cell carcinomaUrothelial carcinomaProstate cancerSeminomaOthers 54 3314322 34.2 20.98.91.91.31.3 63 3816414 33.9 20.48.62.20.52.2 Sarcoma 28 17.7 32 17.2 Others* 76 48.1 91 48.9 *Including breast cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, esophageal cancer, head and neck cancer, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, neuroendocrine, NSCLC, pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, unknown primary, others.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Kim M. Pabst
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
Timo Bartel
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
Patrick Sandach
Medizin Center Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Christina Laschinsky
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
Manuel M. Weber
Medizin Center Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Lukas Kessler
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
Alina T. Küper
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
Boris A. Hadaschik
University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
Claudia Kesch
Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
Rainer Hamacher
Stefan Kasper
Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
Lars E. Podleska
Department of Orthopedic Oncology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
Jens T. Siveke
Markus Eckstein
Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen–Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
Bastian von Tresckow
1Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Department I of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, and German Hodgkin Study Group, Cologne, Germany
Sherko Kuemmel
Breast Unit, Kliniken Essen Mitte Evangelische Huyssens-Stiftung, Essen, Germany
Anke Reinacher-Schick
Department of Hematology and Oncology with Palliative Care, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
Waldemar Uhl
Department of General and Visceral Surgery, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany
Ken Herrmann
Wofgang P. Fendler
Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany