Comparative Evaluation of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi and [18F]FDG PET/CT in Metastatic Breast and Lung Cancer: Semiquantitative, Volumetric and Prognostic Assessment
Abstract
1. Introduction
- Compare semiquantitative (SUVmax, SUVmean) and volumetric (MTV, TLG, STV, TLF) PET parameters between tracers;
- Evaluate metastatic site detection, including brain metastases;
- Correlate PET-derived parameters with progression-free survival (PFS).
2. Results
2.1. Breast Cancer Cohort
2.1.1. Demographics and Imaging Variables in Breast Cancer Cohort
2.1.2. Tracer Comparison: SUV and Volumetric Tumor Burden in Breast Cancer
2.1.3. Detection of Metastases in Breast Cancer
2.1.4. Patient-Based Comparison in Breast Cancer
2.1.5. Luminal Subtype Variation in Tracer Uptake
2.2. Lung Cancer Cohort
2.2.1. Demographics and Imaging Variables in Lung Cancer Cohort
2.2.2. Tracer Comparison: SUV and Volumetric Tumor Burden in Lung Cancer
2.2.3. Detection of Metastases in Lung Cancer
2.2.4. Molecular Subgroup Analysis in Lung Cancer
2.3. Correlation Analysis Between [18F]FDG and [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi PET/CT Parameters
2.3.1. Tracer-Specific Inter-Parameter Relationship in Breast Cancer
2.3.2. Tracer-Specific Inter-Parameter Relationship in Lung Cancer
2.4. Correlation of PET/CT Parameters with PFS (Progression Free Survival)
2.4.1. Prognostic Correlation in Breast Cancer
2.4.2. Prognostic Correlation in Lung Cancer
3. Discussion
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Study Design and Patient Selection
4.2. Radiotracer Synthesis and PET/CT Acquisition
- [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi: 0.05–0.06mCi/kg (1.81–2.18 MBq/kg)
- [18F]FDG: 0.10–0.12 mCi/kg (3.70–4.44 MBq/kg)
4.3. Image Analysis
- MTV: Metabolic Tumor Volume (FDG);
- TLG: Total Lesion Glycolysis (FDG);
- STV: Stromal Tumor Volume (FAPi);
- TLF: Total Lesion FAP expression (FAPi).
4.4. Confirmation of Metastatic Status
4.5. Statistical Analysis
4.6. Treatment and Prognosis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| ALK | Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase |
| CAF | Cancer-Associated Fibroblast |
| CT | Computed Tomography |
| ECOG | Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group |
| EGFR | Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor |
| FAP | Fibroblast Activation Protein |
| FAPi | Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor |
| FDG | Fluorodeoxyglucose |
| IEC | Institutional Ethics Committee |
| IQR | Interquartile Range |
| LDH | Lactate Dehydrogenase |
| LN | Lymph Node |
| MIP | Maximum-Intensity Projection |
| MTV | Metabolic Tumor Volume |
| OSEM | Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization |
| PET | Positron Emission Tomography |
| PERCIST | PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors |
| PFS | Progression-Free Survival |
| PPV | Positive Predictive Value |
| ROI | Region of Interest |
| SD | Standard Deviation |
| STV | Stromal Tumor Volume |
| TLF | Total Lesion FAP |
| TLG | Total lesion glycolysis |
References
- Fletcher, J.W.; Djulbegovic, B.; Soares, H.P.; Siegel, B.A.; Lowe, V.J.; Lyman, G.H.; Coleman, R.E.; Wahl, R.; Paschold, J.C.; Avril, N.; et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J. Nucl. Med. 2008, 49, 480–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lardinois, D.; Weder, W.; Hany, T.F.; Kamel, E.M.; Korom, S.; Seifert, B.; von Schulthess, G.K.; Steinert, H.C. Staging of non–small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348, 2500–2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Groheux, D.; Cochet, A.; Humbert, O.; Alberini, J.L.; Hindié, E.; Mankoff, D. [18F]FDG PET/CT for staging and restaging of breastcancer. J. Nucl. Med. 2016, 57, 17S–26S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kostakoglu, L.; Agress, H., Jr.; Goldsmith, S.J. Clinical role of FDG PET in evaluation of cancer patients. Radiographics 2003, 23, 315–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lindner, T.; Loktev, A.; Altmann, A.; Giesel, F.; Kratochwil, C.; Debus, J.; Jäger, D.; Mier, W.; Haberkorn, U. Development of quino-line-based theranostic ligands for the targeting of fibroblast activation protein. J. Nucl. Med. 2018, 59, 1415–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kratochwil, C.; Flechsig, P.; Lindner, T.; Abderrahim, L.; Altmann, A.; Mier, W.; Adeberg, S.; Rathke, H.; Röhrich, M.; Winter, H.; et al. 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT: Tracer uptake in 28 different kinds of cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 2019, 60, 801–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giesel, F.L.; Kratochwil, C.; Schlittenhardt, J.; Dendl, K.; Eiber, M.; Staudinger, F.; Kessler, L.; Fendler, W.P.; Lindner, T.; Koerber, S.A.; et al. Head-to-head intra-individual comparison of biodistribution and tumor uptake of 68Ga-FAPI and [18F]FDGPET/CT in cancer patients. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2021, 48, 4377–4385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiong, M.; You, H.; Feng, J.; Liu, Y.; Luo, X.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, S.N. 18F-FAPI-42 PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with malig-nant digestive system neoplasms: A head-to-head comparative study. Mol. Imaging Biol. 2025, 27, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Röhrich, M.; Leitz, D.; Glatting, F.M.; Wefers, A.K.; Weinheimer, O.; Flechsig, P.; Kahn, N.; Mall, M.A.; Giesel, F.L.; Kratochwil, C.; et al. Fibroblast activation protein–specific PET/CT imaging in fibrotic interstitial lung diseases and lung cancer: A transla-tional exploratory study. J. Nucl. Med. 2022, 63, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kuten, J.; Levine, C.; Shamni, O.; Pelles, S.; Wolf, I.; Lahat, G.; Mishani, E.; Even-Sapir, E. Head-to-head comparison of [68Ga] Ga-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT in evaluating the extent of disease in gastric adenocarcinoma. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2022, 49, 743–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Röhrich, M.; Loktev, A.; Wefers, A.K.; Altmann, A.; Paech, D.; Adeberg, S.; Windisch, P.; Hielscher, T.; Flechsig, P.; Floca, R.; et al. IDH-wildtype glioblastomas and grade III/IV IDH-mutant gliomas show elevated tracer uptake in fibroblast activation protein–specific PET/CT. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2019, 46, 2569–2580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Syed, M.; Flechsig, P.; Liermann, J.; Windisch, P.; Staudinger, F.; Akbaba, S.; Körber, S.A.; Freudlsperger, C.; Plinkert, P.K.; Debus, J.; et al. Fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) PET for diagnostics and advanced targeted radiotherapy in head and neck cancers. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2020, 47, 2836–2845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Fuchs, H.E.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2022, 72, 7–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Filho, A.M.; Laversanne, M.; Ferlay, J.; Colombet, M.; Piñeros, M.; Znaor, A.; Parkin, D.M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Bray, F. The GLBOCAN 2022 cancer estimates: Data sources, methods, and a snapshot of the cancer burden worldwide. Int. J. Cancer 2025, 156, 1336–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]





| Variable | Summary | |
|---|---|---|
| Parameter | (Mean ± SD) | |
| Age (years) | 46.78 ± 10.69 | |
| Weight (kg) | 55.92 ± 11.43 | |
| Tumor size (cm) | 4.18 ± 1.36 | |
| PFS (days) | 242.61 ± 102.80 | |
| Outcome, n (%) | Progression Stable Partial Response Complete Response Death | 15 (65.2) 3 (13.0) 2 (8.7) 2 (8.7) 1 (4.3) |
| Luminal subtypes n (%) | A | 5 (21.74) |
| B | 13 (56.56) | |
| C | 5 (21.74) | |
| Imaging parameters (Median/IQR or Mean ± SD) | [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi PET/CT | [18F]FDG PET/CT |
| Primary SUVmean | 3.71 (2.99–4.76) | 4.68 (3.57–5.67) |
| Primary TBR | 4.18 ± 2.63 | 3.98 (3.18–6.59) |
| LN mets SUVmax | 3.88 (2.21–5.49) | 5.99 (3.35–9.44) |
| LN mets SUVmean | 2.85 (1.40–4.65) | 4.21 (1.99–6.38) |
| LN mets TBR | 2.43 (1.23–4.58) | 2.58 (1.06–4.01) |
| Bone mets SUVmax | 5.22 ± 4.72 | 4.46 ± 4.31 |
| Bone mets SUVmean | 3.89 ± 3.58 | 3.31 ± 3.23 |
| Parameter | [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi PET/CT | [18F]FDG PET/CT | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| pSTV/pMTV | 211.08 ± 101.62 | 237.87 ± 112.91 | <0.001 ** |
| wbSTV/wbMTV | 1030.48 (612.11–1765.33) | 1332.75 (765.13–2248.90) | <0.001 ** |
| wbTLF/wbTLG | 1396.39 (924.43–1999.10) | 1994.85 (1249.18–2835.70) | <0.001 ** |
| Brain background SUVmax | 0.52 ± 0.16 | 7.43 (6.00–10.36) | <0.001 ** |
| pSUVmax | 4.30 (3.13–9.45) | 11.84 ± 5.13 | <0.001 ** |
| TBR (brain metastases) | 5.17 (3.12–11.07) | 0.78 ± 0.88 | <0.001 ** |
| Liver SUVmax | 1.57 ± 0.62 | 2.19 (1.79–3.41) | <0.001 ** |
| TBR (bone metastases) | 3.10 (0.00–6.05) | 1.69 (0.00–2.76) | 0.016 * |
| pTLF/pTLG | 837.60 (473.09–1144.29) | 1144.22 ± 657.56 | 0.018 * |
| TBR (liver metastases) | 0.00 (0–1.58) | 0.00 (0–1.11) | 0.028 * |
| Variable | Summary | |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical and molecular parameters | Mean ± SD/Median (IQR) | |
| Age (years) | 54.64 ± 12.14 | |
| Weight (kg) | 58.50 (53.00–66.12) | |
| ECOG score | 2.59 ± 0.91 | |
| Serum LDH (U/L) | 322.0 (250.0–1078.8) | |
| PFS (days) | 534.8 ± 261.7 | |
| Male | 14 (63.6) | |
| Gender, n (%) | ||
| Female | 8 (36.4) | |
| Yes | 15 (68.2) | |
| Smoking, n (%) | ||
| No | 7 (31.8) | |
| Positive | 3 (13.6) | |
| ALK mutation, n (%) | ||
| Negative | 19 (86.4) | |
| Positive | 11 (50.0) | |
| EGFR mutation, n (%) | ||
| Negative | 11 (50.0) | |
| Imaging parameters Mean ± SD/Median (IQR) | [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi PET/CT | [18F]FDG PET/CT |
| Primary TBR | 3.50 (1.99–6.71) | 3.75 (1.92–5.80) |
| pSTV (mL) | 89.27 ± 53.87 | 39.05 (22.62–70.30) |
| pTLF/pTLG | 415.36 ± 199.37 | 314.81 (139.01–778.13) |
| wbSTV (mL) | 326.93 ± 143.96 | 303.50 (187.29–635.13) |
| wbTLF/wbTLG | 1034.18 ± 388.45 | 663.32 (399.40–1439.63) |
| LN mets SUVmax | 6.30 (3.03–10.76) | 6.99 (3.00–11.41) |
| LN mets SUVmean | 4.57 (2.07–8.15) | 4.61 (1.81–7.68) |
| Metric | [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi | [18F]FDG PET/CT | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary SUVmax | 7.32 (5.54–10.85) | 9.77 (6.11–18.63) | 0.063 |
| Primary SUVmean | 5.51 (4.23–8.34) | 7.41 (3.92–12.65) | 0.079 |
| Brain background SUVmax | 0.73 ± 0.26 | 7.35 (6.53–10.48) | <0.001 ** |
| TBR (brain metastases) | 3.62 (2.19–5.09) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | <0.001 ** |
| Liver SUVmax | 2.18 ± 0.85 | 3.19 ± 1.10 | <0.001 ** |
| Liver SUVmean | 1.37 (1.15–1.75) | 1.98 (1.83–2.87) | 0.002 ** |
| Variable | Group | Group Sizes (Positive, Negative) | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| pSTV | EGFR mutation | 11, 11 | 0.036 * |
| pSTV | ALK mutation | 19, 3 | 0.030 * |
| wbSTV | EGFR mutation | 11, 11 | 0.036 * |
| Variable | Spearman ρ | p-Value |
|---|---|---|
| wbTLG | −0.688 | 0.0003 ** |
| pTLG | −0.686 | 0.0003 ** |
| wbTLF | −0.674 | 0.0004 ** |
| wbMTV | −0.618 | 0.0017 * |
| wbSTV | −0.591 | 0.003 ** |
| pSTV | −0.558 | 0.0057 ** |
| pMTV | −0.558 | 0.0057 ** |
| pTLF | −0.513 | 0.012 * |
| Variable | Spearman’s ρ | p Value |
|---|---|---|
| wbTLF | −0.600 | 0.0032 ** |
| wbSTV | −0.429 | 0.046 * |
| pSTV | −0.312 | 0.158 |
| pTLF | −0.289 | 0.192 |
| pMTV | −0.141 | 0.530 |
| wbTLG | −0.062 | 0.785 |
| wbMTV | 0.007 | 0.976 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Sarswat, S.; Ballal, S.; Yadav, M.P.; Tripathi, M.; Malik, P.S.; Mathur, S.R.; Rösch, F.; Bal, C. Comparative Evaluation of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi and [18F]FDG PET/CT in Metastatic Breast and Lung Cancer: Semiquantitative, Volumetric and Prognostic Assessment. Pharmaceuticals 2026, 19, 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph19020317
Sarswat S, Ballal S, Yadav MP, Tripathi M, Malik PS, Mathur SR, Rösch F, Bal C. Comparative Evaluation of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi and [18F]FDG PET/CT in Metastatic Breast and Lung Cancer: Semiquantitative, Volumetric and Prognostic Assessment. Pharmaceuticals. 2026; 19(2):317. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph19020317
Chicago/Turabian StyleSarswat, Sulochana, Sanjana Ballal, Madhav Prasad Yadav, Madhavi Tripathi, Prabhat Singh Malik, Sandeep R. Mathur, Frank Rösch, and Chandrasekhar Bal. 2026. "Comparative Evaluation of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi and [18F]FDG PET/CT in Metastatic Breast and Lung Cancer: Semiquantitative, Volumetric and Prognostic Assessment" Pharmaceuticals 19, no. 2: 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph19020317
APA StyleSarswat, S., Ballal, S., Yadav, M. P., Tripathi, M., Malik, P. S., Mathur, S. R., Rösch, F., & Bal, C. (2026). Comparative Evaluation of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi and [18F]FDG PET/CT in Metastatic Breast and Lung Cancer: Semiquantitative, Volumetric and Prognostic Assessment. Pharmaceuticals, 19(2), 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph19020317

