Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Head-to-head comparison of 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT in common gynecological malignancies

Cancer Imaging volume 25, Article number: 21 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

68Ga-FAPI (fibroblast activation protein inhibitor) is a novel and highly promising radiotracer for PET/CT imaging. It has shown significant tumor uptake and high sensitivity in lesion detection across a range of cancer types. We aimed to compare the diagnostic value of 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in common gynecological malignancies.

Methods

This retrospective study included 35 patients diagnosed with common gynecological tumors, including breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and cervical cancer. Among the 35 patients, 27 underwent PET/CT for the initial assessment of tumors, while 8 were assessed for recurrence detection. The median and range of tumor size and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) were calculated.

Results

Thirty-five patients (median age, 57 years [interquartile range], 51–65 years) were evaluated. In treatment-naive patients (n = 27), 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT led to upstaging of the clinical TNM stage in five (19%) patients compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT. No significant difference in tracer uptake was observed between 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI for primary lesions: breast cancer (7.2 vs. 4.9, P = 0.086), ovarian cancer (16.3 vs. 15.7, P = 0.345), and cervical cancer (18.3 vs. 17.1, P = 0.703). For involved lymph nodes, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT demonstrated a higher SUVmax for breast cancer (9.9 vs. 6.1, P = 0.007) and cervical cancer (6.3 vs. 4.8, P = 0.048), while no significant difference was noted for ovarian cancer (7.0 vs. 5.9, P = 0.179). Furthermore, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT demonstrated higher specificity and accuracy compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting metastatic lymph nodes (100% vs. 66%, P < 0.001; 94% vs. 80%, P < 0.001). In contrast, sensitivity did not differ significantly (97% vs. 86%, P = 0.125). For most distant metastases, 68Ga-FAPI exhibited a higher SUVmax than 18F-FDG in bone metastases (12.9 vs. 4.9, P = 0.036).

Conclusions

68Ga-FAPI PET/CT demonstrated higher tracer uptake and was superior to 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting primary and metastatic lesions in patients with common gynecological malignancies.

Trial registration

ChiCTR, ChiCTR2100044131. Registered 10 October 2022, https://www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2100044131.

Introduction

Recent statistics indicate that breast cancer (11.6%), cervical cancer (3.3%), and ovarian cancer (1.6%) are the most commonly diagnosed gynecological malignancies. They also represent the leading causes of cancer deaths among women, accounting for 6.9%, 3.6%, and 2.1%, respectively [1]. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT is a valuable imaging modality for the diagnosis, staging, and management of gynecological malignancies; however, certain limitations should be acknowledged [2,3,4]. 18F-FDG PET/CT exhibits low sensitivity in detecting primary lesions and nodal metastases of female cancers due to physiological factors that can lead to variations in 18F-FDG uptake. Furthermore, it may not accurately differentiate between acute inflammatory infections and tumor growth [5, 6]. Moreover, 18F-FDG uptake can be influenced by blood glucose levels, requiring fasting prior to the 18F-FDG PET/CT procedure. This fasting requirement may reduce patient comfort.

Fibroblast activation protein is overexpressed in cancer-associated fibroblasts, which represent the predominant component of the stroma in epithelial neoplasms [7]. Cancer-associated fibroblasts express fibroblast activation protein (FAP), which can be specifically targeted and bound by fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) [8]. Additionally, FAP is associated with poor prognosis and the promotion of tumor growth [9]. Consequently, several studies utilizing 68Ga-FAPI have been conducted in recent years, yielding promising results across various tumor types and their metastases [10, 11]. 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT has shown significant tumor uptake and high sensitivity in lesion detection across a range of cancer types, including head and neck, lung, gastric, colon, and esophageal cancers [12,13,14]. It is comparable to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of primary and metastatic lesions in certain cancer types [15,16,17]. This study compares the efficacy of 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting primary tumors, lymph node metastases, and distant metastases in common gynecological malignancies.

Materials and methods

Patients

This study obtained approval from the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University (approval no. KY2022114; clinical trial registration no. ChiCTR2200044131). Patients were consecutively recruited for enrollment from January 2022 to December 2023. Both 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT were conducted for comparative analysis without affecting patient care. The interval between the two examinations was limited to a maximum of 7 days.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated breast, ovarian, or cervical cancer; (b) patients who underwent paired 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT for tumor staging to determine the most appropriate treatment strategy; (c) patients who underwent paired 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT to detect tumor recurrence and metastases (repeat staging); and (d) patients who provided written informed consent to participate. The exclusion criteria included: (a) pregnant patients; (b) patients with nonmalignant diseases; (c) patients whose treatment commenced prior to their 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT examination; and (d) individuals unable or unwilling to provide written informed consent, including research participants, parents, or legal representatives. In this study, histopathologic examination of biopsy or resected surgical specimens served as the reference standard for final diagnosis.

Acquisition of PET/CT images

For the 18F-FDG PET/CT, patients were instructed to fast for 4 to 6 h, and their blood glucose levels were measured to ensure they fell within the reference range of 3.9–6.1 mmol/L. No special preparation was required for the 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT examination. The intravenous (IV) doses administered were 3.7 MBq/kg (0.1 mCi/kg) for 18F-FDG and 1.85 MBq/kg (0.05 mCi/kg) for 68Ga-FAPI. PET/CT scans were conducted approximately 45 to 60 min after IV administration. The CT scan parameters included: tube voltage of 120 kV, current of 120 mA, layer thickness of 3.00 mm, layer spacing of 5 mm, and pitch of 0.813. The PET scan was subsequently performed in 3D acquisition mode on the same table as the CT scan. 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT scans were obtained no later than one week after 18F-FDG PET/CT, with a median interval of 2 days (range: 1–6 days) between the two examinations.

PET/CT image analysis

The 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT images were assessed by two board-certified nuclear medicine physicians, and any discrepancies in their interpretations were resolved through consensus. Uptake was classified as positive when an area of focal tracer uptake exceeded the background levels. Furthermore, semiquantitative parameters were calculated using the maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax). To minimize bias, studies were reviewed in groups based on their type.

Primary tumors, involved lymph nodes, and distant metastases were classified as positive if their activity surpassed that of adjacent background tissues. Each lesion in the liver, spleen, and bone was recorded individually. Metastases in the peritoneum, mesentery, and omentum were consistently defined as peritoneal carcinomatosis. Tumor size, SUVmax, median, and range of standardized uptake values were documented.

Reference standard

All breast lesions, ovarian lesions, and cervical lesions were confirmed by pathology. However, because of technical and ethical issues, pathological findings could not be performed on all suspected involved lymph nodes. We used the results of follow-up CT or MRI as the reference standard. The follow-up time was at least 3 months. During follow-up, the lesion may be considered tumor-related based on remission or progression of suspected involved lymph nodes after anticancer therapy, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and/or immunotherapy.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 20.0; IBM, Armonk, NY). The uptakes of 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The results from visually interpreted PET/CT images were compared with histopathologic findings obtained through biopsy or surgery, which served as the reference standard. The McNemar test was employed to assess the difference in detection rates of primary tumors, lymph nodes, bone metastases, and visceral metastases between 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI scans. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for both 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT examinations were calculated and compared to evaluate diagnostic efficacy using the McNemar test. A two-tailed P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient characteristics

This study included 35 female patients (median age, 57 years; interquartile range, 51–65 years) with newly diagnosed or previously treated breast, ovarian, and cervical cancers. The study design is illustrated in Fig. 1. Of the 35 patients, 9 (26%) had breast cancer, 10 (29%) had ovarian cancer, and 16 (45%) had cervical cancer. Within this cohort, 13 patients (37%) were diagnosed with squamous carcinoma, while 22 patients (63%) had adenocarcinoma. A total of 27 patients (77%) underwent PET/CT for the initial assessment of tumors, whereas 8 patients (23%) had PET/CT for recurrence detection. Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram shows patient selection details

Full size image
Table 1 Summary of patient characteristics
Full size table

Adverse events

All patients underwent 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT examinations without any adverse events or complications. No signs of pharmacologic effects or physiological responses related to 18F-FDG or 68Ga-FAPI were observed. Furthermore, none of the patients reported any symptoms.

Comparative results for initial assessment and recurrence detection

In the assessment of imaging modalities among the 27 patients, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT resulted in upstaging the clinical TNM stage in 5 patients (19%) compared to the stage determined by 18F-FDG PET/CT. The confirmed upstaged lesions were verified through CT- or ultrasound-guided biopsy. Among the 8 patients in whom recurrence was detected, the true-positive rates for 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT were 50% (4 of 8) and 100% (8 of 8), respectively, on a per-patient basis. The detailed comparative results for initial assessment and recurrence detection are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Comparative results for initial assessment and recurrence detection
Full size table

Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT in primary tumors

In evaluating the performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT for diagnosing primary tumors in treatment-naive patients, the detection rates were 85% (23 of 27 patients) for 18F-FDG PET/CT and 100% (27 of 27 patients) for 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT. The false-negative results from 18F-FDG PET/CT included breast cancer (n = 3) and ovarian cancer (n = 1). Notably, cervical cancer had no false-negative detections with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT exhibited a higher detection rate for primary lesions (100% [27 of 27] vs. 85% [23 of 27], P < 0.001) and provided clearer tumor delineation, especially in patients with breast cancer (Fig. 2). Analysis of semiquantitative parameters (Table 3) indicated no significant differences in the primary lesions of breast, ovarian, and cervical cancers between 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI (7.2 vs. 4.9, P = 0.086; 16.3 vs. 15.7, P = 0.345; 18.3 vs. 17.1, P = 0.703, respectively).

Fig. 2
figure 2

A 47-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital because of left breast mass 20 days ago. For staging, the patient underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT. The maximal intensity projection image (A) and the axial views (B: PET image; C: CT scan; D: PET/CT fused image) revealed normal findings. Then she was enrolled in our study and underwent 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT. The left breast showed intense uptake on 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT (E: PET image; F: CT scan; G: PET/CT fused image; H: MIP, solid arrow; SUVmax, 15.4). Subsequently, the patient underwent pathology confirmed invasive lobular carcinoma of the left breast

Full size image
Table 3 Comparison of 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG uptake in common gynecological malignancies
Full size table

Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT in nodal metastasis

The number of positive lymph nodes and the semiquantitative parameters for 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT are presented in Table 3. In the comparison of metastatic lymph nodes detected by both tracers in ovarian cancer, no significant difference in SUVmax was observed between the 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG groups (7.0 vs. 5.9; P = 0.179). However, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT exhibited a higher SUVmax compared to 18F-FDG in breast cancer and cervical cancer (9.9 vs. 6.1; P = 0.007; 6.3 vs. 4.8; P = 0.048, respectively).

A total of 71 suspicious lymph nodes in 21 patients were confirmed through pathological examination (13 via biopsy and 58 via surgical dissection). Among these, metastasis was confirmed in 36 lymph nodes from 12 patients. Lymph node involvement included 35 true-positive, 0 false-positive, 1 false-negative, and 35 true-negative findings using 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT, and 31 true-positive, 12 false-positive, 5 false-negative, and 23 true-negative findings with 18F-FDG PET/CT. In addition, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT was found to be beneficial in differentiating false-positive lymph nodes (Fig. 3). In the node-based analysis, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosing metastatic lymph nodes were 86% (31 of 36), 66% (23 of 35), and 80% (54 of 71), respectively, for 18F-FDG PET/CT, and 97% (35 of 36), 100% (35 of 35), and 94% (67 of 71) for 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT (Table 4). The specificity and accuracy of 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT were significantly superior to those of 18F-FDG PET/CT (100% [35 of 35] vs. 66% [23 of 35], P < 0.001; 94% [67 of 71] vs. 80% [54 of 71], P < 0.001, respectively). However, the sensitivity of 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT did not exceed that of 18F-FDG (97% [35 of 36] vs. 86% [31 of 36], P = 0.125).

Fig. 3
figure 3

A 68-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital due to the discovery of a left axillary mass for over 10 days. The 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT were performed for initial assessment. The MIP image(A) and the axial views of 18F-FDG PET/CT (B: PET image; C: CT scan; D: PET/CT fused image) showed suspicious lymph nodes in the right external iliac region (solid arrow, SUVmax, 8.8). However, it showed no corresponding uptake on 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT (E: PET image; F: CT scan; G: PET/CT fused image; H: MIP). Subsequently, the patient underwent lymph node puncture and pathological results revealed a small number of lymphocytes

Full size image
Table 4 Diagnostic performance of 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessment of lymph node metastases
Full size table

Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT in distant metastases

Table 3 presents the number of positive metastatic lesions and the semiquantitative parameters for 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT. The SUVmax of 68Ga-FAPI did not differ significantly from that of 18F-FDG in most distant metastases (liver metastases: 8.4 vs. 7.0, P = 0.109; peritoneal metastases: 7.1 vs. 5.2, P = 0.465; spleen metastases: 5.0 vs. 3.1, P = 0.180). However, for detecting bone metastases, 68Ga-FAPI exhibited a higher SUVmax than 18F-FDG (12.9 vs. 4.9, P = 0.036). Moreover, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT depicted more metastatic lesions and higher SUVmax compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT, particularly in bone (Fig. 4) and spleen (Fig. 5) metastases.

Fig. 4
figure 4

A 63-year-old woman was diagnosed with cervical squamous cell carcinoma in another hospital for more than 3 months and was referred to our hospital. Then 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT were performed for initial assessment. The MIP image (A) and axial views of 18F-FDG PET/CT showed slightly increased uptake in cervix (B, solid arrow; SUVmax, 8.6), left sacrum (C, solid arrow; SUVmax, 2.4), and left ischium (D, dashed arrow; SUVmax, 0.8). While 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT revealed significant increased FAPI uptake in corresponding cervix (E, solid arrow; SUVmax, 12.5), left sacrum (F, solid arrow; SUVmax, 11.1), and left ischium (G, dashed arrow; SUVmax, 7.0). Subsequently, the patient received radiotherapy. It showed the left sacrum and left ischium lesion decreased in size after 3 months

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

A 45-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital because of bleeding after intercourse for one month. A subsequent cervical biopsy indicated cervical adenocarcinoma. For staging, the patient underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT. The MIP image (A) and the axial views (B: PET image; C: CT scan; D: PET/CT fused image) revealed no abnormal uptake. Subsequently, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT was performed. Spleen with intense uptake (E: PET image; F: CT scan; G: PET/CT fused image; H: MIP, solid arrow; SUVmax, 8.2) was observed on 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT. Subsequently, spleen metastasis was confirmed by pathological result

Full size image

Discussion

Gallium-68 (68Ga)-labeled fibroblast activation protein inhibitors (FAPIs) are novel radiotracers designed to target FAP. These 68Ga-FAPIs enable visualization of the stroma in epithelial neoplasms, offering a promising alternative to fluorine-18 (18F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Our study demonstrated that 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT is more sensitive than 18F-FDG PET/CT for identifying primary tumors in breast, ovarian, and cervical cancers (100% [27 of 27] vs. 85% [23 of 27], P < 0.001). Regarding the diagnostic performance for nodal metastasis, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT shows significant advantages in specificity and accuracy (100% [35 of 35] vs. 66% [23 of 35], P < 0.001; 94% [67 of 71] vs. 80% [54 of 71], P < 0.001). However, no significant difference was found between 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the sensitivity of detecting lymph node metastases (97% [35 of 36] vs. 86% [31 of 36], P = 0.125). In terms of diagnostic performance for distant metastases, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT demonstrates a higher SUVmax compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT in bone metastases (12.9 vs. 4.9, P = 0.036).

Previous studies have shown intermediate expression of fibroblast activation protein (FAP) in ovarian and cervical cancers, along with high expression levels in breast cancer [10, 12]. These findings align with our results; the uptake of 68Ga-FAPI in primary tumors of breast, ovarian, and cervical cancers was high. Furthermore, elevated FAP expression in breast and ovarian cancers appears to correlate with advanced tumor grades and poorer prognosis [18, 19]. Our study indicates that five patients were restaged to a different clinical TNM stage based on the results of 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT. In addition, FAPI uptake appears to increase in hormone-responsive organs, such as the breast, during lactation and following hormonal stimulation, as observed in two individual case reports [20, 21]. Furthermore, a retrospective analysis of 77 female patients indicated that physiological uptake may limit the diagnostic value of FAPI in uterine body malignancies [22]. This variability in uptake, influenced by hormonal factors, may pose challenges to the diagnostics of gynecological malignancies using FAPI. Remarkably, the single-molecule FAPI serves as both a diagnostic and potentially therapeutic agent, facilitating additional theranostic applications [8, 23].

Precise staging and lymph node detection are essential for the treatment and prognosis of cancer patients [24,25,26,27]. In our study, the uptake of 68Ga-FAPI in metastatic lymph nodes associated with breast and cervical cancers exceeded that of 18F-FDG. Furthermore, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT may offer greater specificity and accuracy than 18F-FDG in detecting metastatic lymph nodes in patients with breast, ovarian, and cervical cancers. It may assist clinicians in formulating an effective treatment plan. Notably, false-positive lymph nodes were identified on 18F-FDG PET/CT in all three cancer types, whereas none were detected by 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT. These findings suggest that 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT can help identify false-positive lymph nodes previously detected by 18F-FDG PET/CT, thereby reducing unnecessary biopsies and complications. Nonetheless, 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT represents a promising imaging modality, particularly when 18F-FDG PET/CT is of limited utility.

This study has several limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small (n = 35) and heterogeneous, consisting of patients with breast, ovarian, and cervical cancers. Second, the representation of various malignancies was imbalanced, necessitating prospective trials with larger patient populations to further evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of this approach. Third, FAPI uptake may be influenced by hormonal factors in normal hormone-responsive organs or by the menstrual cycle.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our results indicate that 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT demonstrates higher tracer uptake and is partially superior to 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting primary and metastatic lesions in patients with common gynecological malignancies. Additionally, it yielded favorable results in the initial assessment, detection of recurrences, and differentiation of false-positive lymph nodes. 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT emerges as a highly promising tracer and may serve as a valuable supplement to 18F-FDG PET/CT. However, larger prospective studies are needed to confirm this.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

18F-FDG:

Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose

68Ga-FAPI:

Gallium-68-fibroblast activation protein inhibitor

PET:

Positron emission tomography

CT:

Computed tomography

SUVmax :

Maximum standardized uptake values

References

  1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74:229–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Paydary K, Seraj SM, Zadeh MZ, et al. The evolving role of FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of breast Cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2019;21:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sun J, Cui XW, Li YS, et al. The value of 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging combined with detection of CA125 and HE4 in the diagnosis of recurrence and metastasis of ovarian cancer. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020;24:7276–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Olthof EP, Wenzel HHB, van der Velden J, Stalpers LJA, Mom CH, van der Aa MA. (2024) Treatment strategies guided by [18F]FDG-PET/CT in patients with locally advanced cervical Cancer and [18F]FDG-Positive lymph nodes. Cancers (Basel) 16.

  5. Hess S, Scholtens AM, Gormsen LC. Patient Preparation and Patient-related challenges with FDG-PET/CT in infectious and inflammatory disease. PET Clin. 2020;15:125–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lind P, Igerc I, Beyer T, Reinprecht P, Hausegger K. Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(Suppl 1):S125–134.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Altmann A, Haberkorn U, Siveke J. The latest developments in imaging of fibroblast activation protein. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:160–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loktev A, Lindner T, Mier W, et al. A Tumor-Imaging method targeting Cancer-Associated fibroblasts. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1423–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Huang R, Pu Y, Huang S, et al. FAPI-PET/CT in Cancer imaging: A potential novel molecule of the century. Front Oncol. 2022;12:854658.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Dendl K, Koerber SA, Finck R, et al. (68)Ga-FAPI-PET/CT in patients with various gynecological malignancies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:4089–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kratochwil C, Flechsig P, Lindner T, et al. (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT: tracer uptake in 28 different kinds of Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:801–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hathi DK, Jones EF. (68)Ga FAPI PET/CT: tracer uptake in 28 different kinds of Cancer. Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2019;1:e194003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen X, Wang S, Lai Y, et al. Fibroblast activation protein and Glycolysis in lymphoma diagnosis: comparison of (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:1399–405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu H, Hu Z, Yang X, Dai T, Chen Y. Comparison of [(68)Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [(18)F]FDG uptake in esophageal Cancer. Front Oncol. 2022;12:875081.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Giesel FL, Kratochwil C, Lindner T, et al. (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT: biodistribution and preliminary dosimetry estimate of 2 DOTA-Containing FAP-Targeting agents in patients with various cancers. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:386–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang L, Tang G, Hu K, et al. Comparison of (68)Ga-FAPI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of advanced lung Cancer. Radiology. 2022;303:191–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu S, Feng Z, Xu X, et al. Head-to-head comparison of [(18)F]-FDG and [(68) Ga]-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT for radiological evaluation of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:1521–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang M, Xu L, Wang X, Sun B, Ding J. Expression levels of Seprase/FAPalpha and DPPIV/CD26 in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Oncol Lett. 2015;10:34–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Jung YY, Lee YK, Koo JS. Expression of cancer-associated fibroblast-related proteins in adipose stroma of breast cancer. Tumour Biol. 2015;36:8685–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sonni I, Lee-Felker S, Memarzadeh S, et al. (68)Ga-FAPi-46 diffuse bilateral breast uptake in a patient with cervical cancer after hormonal stimulation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:924–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dendl K, Koerber SA, Adeberg S, et al. Physiological FAP-activation in a postpartum woman observed in oncological FAPI-PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:2059–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang X, Song W, Qin C, et al. Uterine uptake of 68Ga-FAPI-04 in uterine pathology and physiology. Clin Nucl Med. 2022;47:7–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Li T, Zhang J, Yan Y, Tan M, Chen Y. Applications of FAPI PET/CT in the diagnosis and treatment of breast and the most common gynecologic malignancies: a literature review. Front Oncol. 2024;14:1358070.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zheng S, Lin J, Zhu Y, et al. 68Ga-FAPI versus 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluating newly diagnosed breast Cancer patients: A Head-to-Head comparative study. Clin Nucl Med. 2023;48:e104–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hirmas N, Hamacher R, Sraieb M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of (68)Ga-FAPI versus (18)F-FDG PET in patients with various malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2024. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2967/jnumed.123.266652.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Lan L, Zhang S, Xu T, et al. Prospective comparison of (68)Ga-FAPI versus (18)F-FDG PET/CT for tumor staging in biliary tract cancers. Radiology. 2022;304:648–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu H, Yang X, Liu L, Qu G, Chen Y. Comparison of 18 F-FDG and 68 Ga-FAPI-04 uptake in postoperative Re-evaluation of gastric, duodenal, and colorectal cancers. Clin Nucl Med. 2023;48:304–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the members of the Molecular Imaging Laboratory of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwestern Medical University for their technical guidance, cooperation and assistance in completing this research project.

Funding

This work was supported by Major science and technology projects of Gansu Province(23ZDFA014), and Isotope and Drug Innovation Fund of National Engineering Research Center for Isotopes and Drugs (TWSCX-2023-CXJJ-3-1).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Tengfei Li, Jintao Zhang, and Yuanzhuo Yan contributed equally to this work and shared joint first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, 646000, PR China

    Tengfei Li, Jintao Zhang, Yuanzhuo Yan, Wenjie Pei, Qingchu Hua & Yue Chen

  2. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Luzhou, Sichuan, 646000, PR China

    Tengfei Li, Jintao Zhang, Yuanzhuo Yan, Wenjie Pei, Qingchu Hua & Yue Chen

  3. Laboratory for Targeted Radiopharmaceuticals Creation, Luzhou, Sichuan, 646000, PR China

    Tengfei Li, Jintao Zhang, Yuanzhuo Yan, Wenjie Pei, Qingchu Hua & Yue Chen

  4. Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, 646000, PR China

    Tengfei Li, Jintao Zhang, Yuanzhuo Yan, Wenjie Pei, Qingchu Hua & Yue Chen

  5. Department of Orthopedic, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, 646000, PR China

    Yue Zhang

Authors
  1. Tengfei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jintao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuanzhuo Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yue Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wenjie Pei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qingchu Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yue Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TFL, JTZ, and YZY contributed equally. TFL, JTZ, and YZY designed the method, performed the data analysis, and prepared the manuscript. YZ, WJP, and QCH aided in the data analysis and revised and approved the manuscript. YC aided in the data acquisition, data analysis, and revised and approved the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yue Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University (Ethics committee approval No.: KY2022114; Clinical trial registration No.: ChiCTR2100044131). All procedures involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee, as well as the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any animal experiments. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, T., Zhang, J., Yan, Y. et al. Head-to-head comparison of 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT in common gynecological malignancies. Cancer Imaging 25, 21 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40644-025-00843-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40644-025-00843-7

Keywords

Cancer Imaging

ISSN: 1470-7330

Contact us