PET/CT with 68Ga-FAPI in the Diagnosis of Cancer of Unknown Primary Localization. Clinical Case
https://doi.org/10.37174/2587-7593-2023-6-4-99-104
Abstract
Purpose: Analysis of a clinical case of detection the primary focus in a patient with metastatic liver damage from cancer of unknown primary localization using PET/CT with 68Ga-FAPI.
Material and methods: A patient with metastatic liver damage from CUP underwent a set of diagnostic methods, according to the results of which the primary focus was not detected. PET/CT with 68Ga-FAPI revealed the primary focus, which was localize in the left breast and did not accumulate 18F-FDG. According to mammography, the formation in the left breast was regard as benign changes (BI-RADS-2). According to the results of histological examination, the node in the left breast is invasive ductal cancer.
Conclusion: PET/CT with 68Ga-FAPI can potentially surpass PET/CT with 18F-FDG in the detection of primary tumors in metastases from cancer of unknown primary localization.
Keywords
PET/CT,
positron emission tomography,
68Ga-FAPI,
18F-FDG,
liver metastases,
cancer of unknown primary localization
Supporting agencies: The study had no sponsorship
About the Authors
P. E. Tulin
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
115478
24 Kashirskoye Shosse
Moscow
A. N. Polyakov
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
115478
24 Kashirskoye Shosse
Moscow
A. I. Pronin
N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
115478
24 Kashirskoye Shosse
Moscow
References
1. Woo S, Becker AS, Do RK, et al. Impact of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on management of cancer of unknown primary: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2021;159:60-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.09.031.
2. Rassy E, Pavlidis N. The currently declining incidence of cancer of unknown primary. Cancer Epidemiology. 2019;61:139-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2019.06.006.
3. Ding Y, Jiang J, Xu J, et al. Site-specific therapy in cancers of unknown primary site: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ESMO Open. 2022;7(2):100407. DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100407.
4. Massard C, Loriot Y, Fizazi K. Carcinomas of an unknown primary origin—diagnosis and treatment. Nature reviews Clinical Oncol. 2011;8(12):701-10. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.158.
5. Pavlidis N, Pentheroudakis G. Cancer of unknown primary site: 20 questions to be answered. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:303-7. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq278.
6. Pavlidis N, Briasoulis E, Pentheroudakis G. Cancers of unknown primary site: ESMO Clinical Practice Guide-lines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:228-31. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq193.
7. Krämer A, Bochtler T, Pauli C, et al. Cancer of unknown primary: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2022;34(3):228-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.11.013.
8. Novik AB, Gladkov AA, Imyanitov EN, et al. Practical recommendations for the drug treatment of tumors of undetected primary localization. Malignant tumors: Practical recommendations RUSSCO №3s2. 2022;353-65. (In Russian) DOI: 10.18027/2224-5057-2022-12-3s2-353-365.
9. Kwee TC, Kwee RM. Combined FDG-PET/CT for the detection of unknown primary tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:731-44. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1194-4.
10. Riaz S, Nawaz MK, Faruqui ZS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in the evaluation of carcinoma of unknown primary. Mol Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy. 2016;25(1):11. DOI: 10.4274/mirt.05706.
11. Haas I, Hoffmann T.K, Engers R, et al. Diagnostic strategies in cervical carcinoma of an unknown primary (CUP). Eur Archives of Otorhinolaryngol. 2002;259:325-33. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-002-0470-1.
12. Davis KS, Byrd JK, Mehta V, et al. Occult primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: utility of discovering primary lesions. Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery. 2014;151(2):272-8. DOI: 10.1177/0194599814533494.
13. Kwee T.C, Basu S, Cheng G, et al. FDG PET/CT in carcinoma of unknown primary. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:635-44. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-009-1295-6.
14. Han A, Xue J, Hu M, et al. Clinical value of 18F-FDG PET-CT in detecting primary tumor for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary. Cancer Epidemiol. 2012;36(5):470-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2012.03.002.
15. Kitajima K, Nakajo M, Kaida H, et al. Present and future roles of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of gastrointestinal cancer: an update. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2017;79(4):527-43. DOI: 10.18999/nagjms.79.4.527.
16. Chen H, Pang Y, 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. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-04769-z.
17. Liu Q, Shi S, Liu S, et al. The added value of [68Ga] Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in pancreatic cancer: a comparison to [18F] F-FDG. Eur Radiol. 2023;33:5007-16. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09445-y.
18. Shu Q, Deng M, Hu M, et al. The additional role of [68Ga] Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in patients with unknown primary lesion with a negative or equivocal [18F] FDG. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:1442-52. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-06095-y.
19. Chen H, Zhao L, Ruan D, 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;48:73-86. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-04940-6.
20. Veldhuijzen van Zanten SEM, Pieterman KJ, Wijnhoven BPL, et al. FAPI PET versus FDG PET, CT or MRI for staging pancreatic-, gastric-and cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and head-to-head comparisons of diagnostic performances. Diagnostics. 2022;12(8):1958. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12081958.
21. Kömek H, Can C, Güzel Y, et al. 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT, a new step in breast cancer imaging: a comparative pilot study with the 18F-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2021; 35:744-52. DOI: 10.1007/s12149-021-01616-5.
22. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, et al. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98:267-74. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-006-9159-2 .
23. Hamson E.J, Keane F.M, Tholen S, et al. Understanding fibroblast activation protein (FAP): substrates, activities, expression and targeting for cancer therapy. PROTEOMICS. Clinical Applications. 2014;8(5-6):454-63. DOI: 10.1002/prca.201300095.
Review
For citations:
Tulin P.E., Polyakov A.N., Pronin A.I. PET/CT with 68Ga-FAPI in the Diagnosis of Cancer of Unknown Primary Localization. Clinical Case. Journal of oncology: diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy. 2023;6(4):99-104. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37174/2587-7593-2023-6-4-99-104
Views:
874
Email this article 