Preoperative assessment of peritoneal carcinomatosis with [ <sup>68</sup> Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT.
Abstract
5553 Background: Accurate preoperative mapping of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is essential for selecting patients for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and guiding treatment planning. Conventional imaging including [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT may underestimate PC tumour burden. This study evaluated [ 68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT for preoperative PC assessment using a surgico-pathological reference standard and compared its performance with MRI and [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT. Methods: In this prospective phase II study (FAPeCa, NCT06061874), patients with colorectal or ovarian cancer with known or suspected PC underwent [ 68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT, [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT (FDG PET), and MRI within 4 weeks before diagnostic laparoscopy and/or CRS. PC extent was quantified using a 10-segment adaptation of the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI). Reference standard was intraoperative PCI with histopathological confirmation, with pathology adjudicating discordant findings. Agreement between imaging-derived total PCI and the reference-standard PCI was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed, absolute agreement). Segment-level diagnostic performance was evaluated after dichotomisation (PCI 0 vs ≥1). Subgroup analyses were performed according to recent chemotherapy (<3 months). Results: Sixty-one patients were enrolled. Median (IQR) total PCI values were 11 (18.5) for the reference standard, 12 (15.5) for FAPI PET, 6 (15.5) for MRI, and 4 (6.5) for FDG PET; FAPI-PCI was higher than MRI-PCI and FDG-PCI (Wilcoxon signed-rank, p<0.001). Agreement with the reference standard was highest for FAPI PET (ICC 0.81; BCa 95% CI 0.67–0.89), followed by MRI (ICC 0.76; BCa 95% CI 0.63–0.85) and FDG PET (ICC 0.54; BCa 95% CI 0.29–0.74). In the recent chemotherapy subgroup, FAPI PET maintained good agreement with the reference standard (ICC 0.75, BCa 95% CI 0.56–0.86), whereas agreement declined to moderate for MRI (ICC 0.65, BCa 95% CI 0.41–0.82) and was lower for FDG PET (ICC 0.46, BCa 95% CI 0.17–0.75). Segment-level sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 77.6%, 71.2%, and 74.8% for FAPI PET; 67.0%, 84.4%, and 74.7% for MRI; and 47.5%, 91.8%, and 67.2% for FDG PET . Overall segment-level sensitivities and specificities differed across the three modalities (Cochran’s Q, p<0.001). Conclusions: [ 68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT demonstrated the strongest agreement with surgico-pathological PCI and maintained good agreement after recent chemotherapy. It showed higher detectability than MRI and [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT, albeit at the expense of lower specificity. These findings support[ 68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT as a promising modality for preoperative PC mapping. Clinical trial information: NCT06061874 .
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (16)
Ayca Arcay Ozturk
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels,, Belgium
Gabriel Liberale
Department of Digestive Surgery and Digestive Surgical Oncology, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Anne-Leen Deleu
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Raluca Poenaru
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Erwin Woff
Polastro Laura
Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Ana Veron
Department of Radiology, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Laurine Verset
Jean Christophe Noël
Department of Pathology, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium., Brussels, Belgium
Mutaz Kassas
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Zena Wimana
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Sigrid Vercauteren
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Clementine Marin
Department of Medical Physics, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Paulus Kristanto
Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
Loubna Taraji
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
Patrick Flamen
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium