Clinical Utility of ¹⁸Fluorine-Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor-04 Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Comparison With ¹⁸Fluorine-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is highly susceptible to metastasis, making early detection of metastases and associated risk factors crucial for effective management. This study aimed to assess the performance of ¹⁸fluorine (¹⁸F)- fibroblast activation protein inhibitor-04 (¹⁸F-FAPI-04) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in detecting metastasis and predicting pathological characteristics and risk factors in 67 PDAC patients. Comparisons were made with ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸F-FDG) PET/CT. Lesion identifications and radiotracer uptakes were evaluated through visual inspection and semiquantitative analysis using the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). We analyzed the risk factors for metastasis and observed that ¹⁸F-FAPI-04 identified more positive lesions and showed significantly higher SUVmax values than ¹⁸F-FDG in both primary tumors and metastases, leading to upstaging in several cases. In primary tumors, ¹⁸F-FAPI-04 was associated with higher levels of poorly differentiated PDAC, compared to those with moderately differentiated tumors. Notably, the SUVmax of 18F-FAPI-04 in primary tumors demonstrated a significant correlation with pathological differentiation and served as an independent prognostic factor for peritoneal metastasis, rather than lymph node or liver metastasis. Our findings suggested that ¹⁸F-FAPI-04 PET/CT offers superior tumor detectability and improved node-metastasis (NM) staging in PDAC patients, positioning it as a more effective tool than ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT.

Keywords

¹⁸F-FAPI-04 / fibroblast activation protein / metastasis / PET/CT imaging / Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma / risk factors

References

[1] T. Kamisawa, L. D. Wood, T. Itoi, and K. Takaori, “Pancreatic Cancer,” Lancet 388, no. 1 0039 (2016): 73–85.

[2] R. L. Siegel, K. D. Miller, H. E. Fuchs, and A. Jemal, “Cancer Statistics, 2022,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 72, no. 1 (2022): 7–33.

[3] V. P. Groot, N. Rezaee, W. Wu, et al., “Patterns, Timing, and Predictors of Recurrence Following Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma,” Annals of Surgery 267 (2018): 936–945.

[4] L. Zhang, S. Sanagapalli, and A. Stoita, “Challenges in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer,” World Journal of Gastroenterology 24, no. 19 (2018): 2047–2060.

[5] J. Cai, H. Chen, M. Lu, et al., “Advances in the Epidemiology of Pancreatic Cancer: Trends, Risk Factors, Screening, and Prognosis,” Cancer Letters 520 (2021): 1–11.

[6] A. Arnone, R. Laudicella, F. Caobelli, et al., “Clinical Impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the Diagnostic Workup of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review,” Diagnostics (Basel) 10, no. 12 (2020): 1042.

[7] A. N. Hosein, R. A. Brekken, and A. Maitra, “Pancreatic Cancer Stroma: An Update on Therapeutic Targeting Strategies,” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 17, no. 8 (2020): 487.

[8] X. Geng, H. Chen, L. Zhao, et al., “Cancer-Associated Fibro-Blast (CAF) Heterogeneity and Targeting Therapy of CAFs in Pancreatic Cancer,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 9 (2021): 655152.

[9] H. Zhang, J. An, P. Wu, et al., “The Application of [68Ga]-Labeled FAPI-04 PET/CT for Targeting and Early Detection of Pancreatic Carcinoma in Patient-Derived Orthotopic Xenograft Models,” Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging 2022 (2022): 6596702.

[10] L. Zhao, J. Chen, Y. Pang, et al., “Fibroblast Activation Protein-based Theranostics in Cancer Research: A State-of-the-Art Review,” Theranostics 12, no. 4 (2022): 1557–1569.

[11] Z. Wu, Y. Hua, Q. Shen, and C. Yu, “Research Progress on the Role of Fibroblast Activation Protein in Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer,” Nuclear Medicine Communications 43, no. 7 (2022): 746–755.

[12] M. F. Bozkurt, I. Virgolini, S. Balogova, et al., “Guideline for PET/CT Imaging of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms With ⁶⁸Ga-DOTA-Conjugated Somatostatin Receptor Targeting Peptides and ¹⁸F-DOPA,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 44, no. 9 (2017): 1588–1601.

[13] S. M. Sadowski, V. Neychev, C. Millo, et al., “Prospective Study of 68Ga-DOTATATE Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Detecting Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors and Unknown Primary Sites,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 34, no. 6 (2016): 588.

[14] S. Wang, X. Zhou, X. Xu, et al., “Clinical Translational Evaluation of Al18F-NOTA-FAPI for Fibroblast Activation Protein-Targeted Tumour Imaging,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 48, no. 13 (2022): 4259–4271.

[15] X. Li, N. Lu, L. Lin, et al., “F-FAPI-04 Outperforms (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Clinical Assessments of Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 65, no. 2 (2024): 206–212.

[16] L. C. Chu, M. G. Goggins, and E. K. Fishman, “Diagnosis and Detection of Pancreatic Cancer,” Cancer Journal (Sudbury, Mass.) 23 (2017): 333–342.

[17] S. S. Gambhir, J. Czernin, J. Schwimmer, D. H. Silverman, R. E. Coleman, and M. E. Phelps, “A Tabulated Summary of the FDG PET Literature,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 42 (2001): 1S–93S.

[18] Y. Pang, L. Zhao, Q. Shang, T. Meng, L. Zhao, and L. Feng, “Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography With [(68)Ga]Ga-Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitors Improves Tumor Detection and Staging in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49, no. 4 (2022): 1322–1337.

[19] Q. Shu, Y. Wang, M. Deng, X. Chen, M. Liu, and L. Cai, “Benign Lesions With 68Ga-FAPI Uptake: A Retrospective Study,” Bjr 96 (1144): 20220994.

[20] J. Hoppner, L. van Genabith, T. Hielscher, et al., “Comparison of Early and Late 68Ga-FAPI-46-PET in 33 Patients With Possible Recurrence of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas,” Scientific Reports 13, no. 1 (2023): 17848.

[21] M. Lang, A. M. Spektor, T. Hielscher, et al., “Static and Dynamic 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT for the Detection of Malignant Transformation of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasia of the Pancreas,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 64, no. 2 (2023): 244–251.

[22] R. Chen, X. Yang, X. Yu, et al., “Tumor-to-Blood Ratio for Assessment of Fibroblast Activation Protein Receptor Density in Pancreatic Cancer Using [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 50, no. 3 (2023): 929–936.

[23] Z. Zhang, G. Jia, G. Pan, et al., “Comparison of the Diagnostic Efficacy of 68 Ga-FAPI-04 PET/MR and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49, no. 8 (2022): 2877–2888.

[24] K. Y. Elbanna, H. J. Jang, and T. K. Kim, “Imaging Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Comprehensive Review,” Insights Imaging 11, no. 1 (2020): 58.

[25] J. M. Findlay, S. Antonowicz, A. Segaran, et al., “Routinely Staging Gastric Cancer With 18F-FDG PET-CT Detects Additional Metastases and Predicts Early Recurrence and Death After Surgery,” European Radiology 29, no. 5 (2019): 2490–2498.

[26] L. Fu, S. Huang, H. Wu, et al., “Superiority of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04/[18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT to [18F]FDG PET/CT in Delineating the Primary Tumor and Peritoneal Metastasis in Initial Gastric Cancer,” European Radiology 32, no. 9 (2022): 6281–6290.

[27] M. F. Cheng, Y. Y. Huang, B. Y. Ho, et al., “Prospective Comparison of (4S)-4-(3-18F-Fluoropropyl)-L-Glutamate Versus 18F-Fluorodeoxy-Glucose PET/CT for Detecting Metastases From Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Proof-of-Concept Study,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 46, no. 4 (2019): 810–820.

[28] J. Ding, J. Qiu, Z. Hao, et al., “Comparing the Clinical Value of Baseline [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT and [18F]F-FDG PET/CT in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Additional Prognostic Value of the Distal Pancreatitis,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 50, no. 13 (2023): 4036–4050.

[29] C. Cen, C. Wang, S. Wang, et al., “Clinical-Radiomics Nomogram Using Contrast-Enhanced CT to Predict Histological Grade and Survival in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma,” Frontiers in Oncology 13 (2023): 1218128.

[30] S. J. Ahn, M. S. Park, J. D. Lee, and W. J. Kang, “Correlation Between 18F-Fluorodeoxy-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography and Pathologic Differentiation in Pancreatic Cancer,” Annals of Nuclear Medicine 28, no. 5 (2014): 430–435.

[31] S. L. Hu, Z. Y. Yang, Z. R. Zhou, X. J. Yu, B. Ping, and Y. J. Zhang, “Role of SUV(max) Obtained by 18F-FDG PET/CT in Patients With a Solitary Pancreatic Lesion: Predicting Malignant Potential and Proliferation,” Nuclear Medicine Communications 34, no. 6 (2013): 533–539.

[32] V. Dunet, N. Halkic, C. Sempoux, et al., “Prediction of Tumour Grade and Survival Outcome Using Pre-Treatment PET-and MRI-Derived Imaging Features in Patients With Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma,” European Radiology 31, no. 2 (2021): 992–1001.

[33] H. J. Im, S. Oo, W. Jung, et al., “Prognostic Value of Metabolic and Volumetric Parameters of Preoperative FDG-PET/CT in Patients With Resectable Pancreatic Cancer,” Medicine 95, no. 19 (2016): e3686.

[34] Y. Bian, Z. Zheng, X. Fang, et al., “Artificial Intelligence to Predict Lymph Node Metastasis at CT in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma,” Radiology 306, no. 1 (2023): 160–169.

[35] J. Gao, Y. Bai, F. Miao, et al., “Prediction of Synchronous Distant Metastasis of Primary Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Using the Radiomics Features Derived From (18)F-FDG PET and MRI,” Clinical Radiology 78, no. 10 (2023): 746–754.

[36] J. Gao, X. Huang, H. Meng, et al., “Performance of Multiparametric Functional Imaging and Texture Analysis in Predicting Synchronous Metastatic Disease in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Patients by Hybrid PET/MR: Initial Experience,” Frontiers in Oncology 10 (2020): 198.

[37] Q. Dong, X. H. Yang, Y. Zhang, W. Jing, L. Q. Zheng, and Y. P. Liu, “Elevated Serum CA19-9 Level Is a Promising Predictor for Poor Prognosis in Patients With Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Pilot Study,” World Journal of Surgical Oncology 12 (2014): 171.

[38] L. Ge, Z. Fu, Y. Wei, et al., “Preclinical Evaluation and Pilot Clinical Study of [18F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04 for PET Imaging of Rheumatoid Arthritis,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49, no. 12 (2022): 4025–4036.

[39] S. K. Kamarajah, W. R. Burns, T. L. Frankel, C. S. Cho, and H. Nathan, “Validation of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) 8th Edition Staging System for Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Analysis,” Annals of Surgical Oncology 24 (2017): 2023–2030.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). MedComm published by Sichuan International Medical Exchange & Promotion Association (SCIMEA) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.