Next Article in Journal
Detection Rates of Prostate Cancer Across Prostatic Zones Using Freehand Single-Access Transperineal Fusion Biopsies
Previous Article in Journal
Metastasis-Specific CpG Island DNA Hypermethylation of the Long Non-Coding RNA Gene 00404 in Renal Cell Carcinoma
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Look to the Future: Potential Theranostic Applications in Head and Neck Tumors
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Opinion

FAP-Directed Imaging and Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary

1
Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
2
Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), Partner Site Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
3
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty of Heinrich Heine University, University Hospital Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
4
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany
5
The Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 81377 Munich, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2025, 17(13), 2205; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17132205
Submission received: 30 May 2025 / Revised: 25 June 2025 / Accepted: 27 June 2025 / Published: 30 June 2025

Simple Summary

Head and neck cancer of unknown primary (HNCUP) poses significant diagnostic challenges, as [18F]FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) often fails to detect tumor. Fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) PET/CT has emerged as a promising alternative by targeting the tumor microenvironment and has shown improved diagnostic potential. This review summarizes the current evidence on FAPI-PET in HNCUP.

Abstract

Cancer of unknown primary in the head and neck (HNCUP) region poses a major diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. While [18F]FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is widely used for oncologic staging, it frequently fails to accurately identify the primary tumor in HNCUP cases, limiting its diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility. In contrast, Gallium-68 or F-18-labelled fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) PET/CT has emerged as a promising alternative by selectively targeting cancer-associated fibroblasts, which are abundant in the tumor microenvironment. In recent years, FAPI-PET/CT has been increasingly investigated as a complementary or superior imaging modality to FDG-PET/CT for tumor detection in HNCUP, with potential implications for patient management. In a theranostic setting, patients with widespread disease demonstrating increased target expression on FAPI-PET have also been treated using Lutetium-177-labeled FAP-directed therapeutic equivalents. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on FAPI-PET/CT in HNCUP, emphasizing its diagnostic advantages, potential impact on therapeutic decision making, and future directions for research in this evolving field, including FAP-directed radioligand therapies.

1. Introduction

Head and neck cancer encompasses a diverse group of malignancies arising from various anatomical subsites, e.g., the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, or sinuses. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common histological subtype, accounting for 90% of cases [1]. Head and neck cancer of unknown primary (HNCUP) is defined as lymph node metastasis within the head and neck region in the absence of an identifiable primary tumor [2]. Following a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, the primary tumor can be identified in up to 50% of cases of initial HNCUP, a considerable proportion (1.5–3%) remains unresolved, leading to uncertain treatment decisions [2,3]. About two-thirds of HNCUP cases are SCCs [4]. The most common site of HNCUP is the oropharynx (80–90%) [5].
Even though the primary tumor in HNCUP remains undefined by definition, in the majority of cases, cancer of unknown primaries (CUPs) can be explained by a distinct but small primary tumor. Nevertheless, CUPs can also be an entirely unique tumor entity [6,7,8]. The management of patients with HNCUP remains a diagnostic challenge, especially since there is no consensus about diagnostic procedures. Following a physical examination, a biopsy of the suspicious lymph node(s) and panendoscopy imaging is recommended. However, the choice of imaging modalities is still a matter of debate [2,9,10].
In this article, we aim to highlight the role of imaging using FAP-directed PET tracers, assess therapeutic implications, and compare this approach with conventional imaging techniques.

2. Conventional Imaging

Conventional imaging usually includes computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) [11]. Cross-sectional imaging with CT and MRI can detect up to 41% of HNCUPs [12]. Studies have demonstrated a higher detection rate for MRI compared to CT [12]. FDG-PET/CT is widely used in the diagnostic workup of HNCUP due to its ability to detect metabolically active lesions. PET/CT imaging is a hybrid imaging modality that combines functional (PET component) and anatomical information (CT component), thereby allowing precise localization and quantification of biological processes. The functional component is typically based on radiolabeled tracers targeting specific metabolic- or receptor-mediated pathways, while the CT component provides high-resolution anatomical detail [13]. FDG-PET/CT outperforms CT and MRI in identifying the primary site [12,14]. FDG-PET/CT shows a higher sensitivity (93% vs. 81%) and equal specificity (73%) compared to MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging [15,16]. To date, FDG-PET/CT has been suggested to be the most sensitive imaging modality for the detection of HNCUP [17,18]. FDG-PET/CT not only helps to identify the primary, but also serves for staging purposes and, therefore, for treatment planning [19,20]. However, as FDG is not specific for malignancy, false-positive lesions may be detected, for example in the presence of inflammation or other benign conditions [21]. In addition, physiological FDG uptake can be seen in any lymphatic structure or neck muscle [12,22,23]. On the other hand, false-negative FDG uptake can be seen especially in small necrotic or well-differentiated metastases [24]. Therefore, novel tracers with improved detection rates of the primary in HNCUP are in demand.

3. FAPI-PET

3.1. Literature Review

Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is overexpressed by cancer-associated fibroblasts in the microenvironment of various epithelial and mesenchymal malignancies, making them distinct from normal fibroblasts [25,26,27,28]. PET/CT using 68Ga- or 18F-labeled inhibitors of FAP (FAPI), such as [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 or [18F]F-FAPI-74, can visualize these cancer-associated fibroblasts. FAPI has been proven to be a particularly suitable tracer for the imaging of head and neck cancer (HN) with a high tumor-to-background contrast [29,30,31]. Kratochwil et al. presented a study with high uptake to HN lesions, as well as CUP lesions [32]. Several studies have shown that FAPI may be at least equivalent to FDG in terms of accuracy. In particular, the higher tumor-to-background ratios are superior when compared to FDG, despite a lower absolute signal intensity [33,34]. In a small cohort of twelve patients, FAPI and FDG both had a high sensitivity (100%) and accuracy (94.4%) in the detection of primary HN tumors or recurrence when validated with histopathological findings [35]. Gu et al. were the first to describe the diagnostic role of FAPI-PET/CT in HNCUP with negative FDG-PET/CT. In seven patients with a negative FDG scan, primary tumors were identified by FAPI-PET/CT. The primary sites included the nasopharynx, the palatine tonsil, the submandibular gland, and the hypopharynx. A total of 3/7 lesions were missed by FDG-PET/CT due to a lesion size < 10 mm [36]. A prospective comparative imaging study by Gu et al. compared the detection of HNCUP primaries between FDG and FAPI. Primary tumors were detected in 46/91 patients, with FAPI identifying more lesions than FDG (46 vs. 17; p < 0.001) with higher sensitivity and accuracy. The treatment was changed based on FAPI imaging results in 22/91 patients. The patients with unidentified primaries had a worse prognosis (hazard ratio, 5.77; 95% CI, 1.86–17.94; p = 0.0097), highlighting the diagnostic role of FAPI imaging in HNCUP [37].
Most of research focuses on SCC, since this is the predominant histological subtype [22]. Other histological subtypes, such as adenocarcinoma or neuroendocrine malignancies, are often not FDG-avid. Other tracers can, therefore, be used, but these usually target only one specific histological subtype, e.g., somatostatin-receptor-directed PET/CT [38]. In contrast, FAPI can assess a wide range of malignancies [32,39]. The American Society of Oncology guidelines recommend diagnostic tonsillectomy for patients with metastatic SCC of the neck and CUP [40]. Nevertheless, only 18–47% benefit from diagnostic tonsillectomy [41,42,43]. Serfling et al. showed that FAPI imaging led to a better detection of a primary located in the Waldeyer’s tonsillar ring, thus avoiding diagnostic tonsillectomy [44].
Accurate imaging of tumor lesions is particularly important for radiation planning, as inadequate radiation fields or radiation doses are a major cause of recurrence after radiotherapy [45]. Chen et al. presented a study showing that FAPI has a higher accuracy in assessing the N0 neck status compared to FDG (100% vs. 29%) [46]. There was only one study that reported an inferior detection rate of lymph node metastases by FAPI compared to that of FDG with histopathological confirmation [44]. Giesel et al. also demonstrated that FAPI-PET imaging provides a high tumor-to-background contrast. From a prospective clinical perspective, [18F]F-FAPI-74 PET appears particularly promising for precise radiotherapy planning. At the same time, it is associated with a lower radiation burden compared to that of [18F]FDG PET (0.020 vs. 0.024 mSv/MBq), further supporting its potential clinical advantage, especially in sensitive patient populations [47,48]. Table 1 provides an overview of the impact of FAP-directed imaging.
Diagnostic imaging can only influence patient management if it leads to a change in classification—either upgrading or downgrading the findings compared to conventional imaging—and thus changes in the therapeutic approach or decision-making process. To date, there is no evidence of upstaging of patients based on FAPI imaging alone, but FDG imaging must be interpreted with caution due to the potential false-positive uptake [39]. However, recent studies suggest that FAPI has superior diagnostic efficacy in the diagnosis of primary and metastatic disease [39]. Further radiotracers, especially hypoxia tracers, are currently only used for investigative purposes [49,50].

3.2. Case Study

We present a 60-year-old male patient who presented with a two-year history of right-sided cervical soft tissue swelling. MRI revealed a well-circumscribed, spherical lesion in the right mandibular angle with cystic-regressive components and strong contrast enhancement. Furthermore, multiple enlarged lymph nodes were observed bilaterally in the mandibular angle and along the vascular nerve sheath. The enhancement of contrast in the right lingual tonsil was deemed to be reactive. The preliminary differential diagnosis included lymphoma. Surgical excision of the lesion revealed a partially cystic-necrotic lymph node metastasis (maximum diameter 4.7 cm) of a moderately differentiated, keratinizing SCC without extracapsular spread. The presence of strong p16 expression was indicative of a probable association with human papilloma virus, with the oropharynx being identified as the presumed primary site. As no definitive primary tumor could be identified on initial imaging or clinical examination, the case was classified as HNCUP. FDG-PET/CT revealed symmetrical metabolic activity in the Waldeyer’s ring and a suspicious FDG-avid lymph node in the left upper vascular nerve sheath, but no distinct FDG-avid primary lesion. Subsequent [18F]F-FAPI-74-PET/CT demonstrated focal FAP expression in the right palatine tonsil, raising suspicion of a tonsillar carcinoma, as well as increased FAPI uptake in correlation with postoperative changes following lymph node dissection. In contrast to FAPI-PET/CT, no morphologically distinct lesion could be delineated in the region of the right palatine tonsil on CT. No further evidence of a FAP-expressing malignancy was detected (Figure 1). Definitive histopathology of the excised right tonsil and right tongue base confirmed infiltrates of a non-keratinizing, p16-positive SCC (pT2, pN2a [1/18, 4.7 cm], L0, V0, Pn0), with all surgical margins being negative (R0).
In a 60-year-old male patient with HNCUP following lymph node excision of a partially cystic-necrotic lymph node metastasis of a moderately differentiated, keratinizing SCC without extracapsular spread, FDG-PET/CT showed no definitive evidence of a metabolically active primary tumor. There was diffusely increased but largely symmetrical FDG uptake in the Waldeyer’s ring and a single suspicious FDG-avid lymph node in the left upper cervical level along the vascular nerve sheath. In contrast, [18F]F-FAPI-74-PET/CT demonstrated focal, intense FAP expression in the right palatine tonsil (green arrow), suggestive of a primary tonsillar carcinoma. On CT, no morphologically distinct lesion could be delineated in the region of the right palatine tonsil, underlining the added diagnostic value of FAPI-PET in identifying the primary tumor site. Additionally, a diffuse FAPI uptake in the surgical bed following lymph node excision consistent with postoperative changes was detected. Definitive histopathology confirmed infiltrates of a non-keratinizing, p16-positive SCC.

4. FAP-Directed Theranostics

In comparison to FDG, FAPI-PET/CT can be further used to assess eligibility for FAP-directed radioligand therapy based on molecular-imaging-derived target expression. Due to a high tumor-to-background ratio, acceptable damage to the organs at risk may be assumed [51]. There are some data available on FAP-directed therapy with 177Lu or 90Y in different malignancies, however, the data for HN, or even HNCUP, are limited. Fu et al. presented a case report of a male patient diagnosed with non-keratinizing undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma with diffuse metastases of the lymph nodes and bones. Since the patient had no further treatment options, FAP-directed therapy with 3.7 GBq of [177Lu]Lu-FAPI-46 was conducted. The patient reported a decrease in ostealgia three days following the therapy, however, follow up imaging after eight weeks showed a mixed response by FAPI-PET/CT and progressive disease by CT. The patient declined further cycles of FAP-directed therapy [52]. Several studies showed an acceptable safety profile of FAP-directed therapy [53,54]. However, a prolonged circulation time of FAP-targeting antibodies and limited tumor retention were reported, since the radioligand binds to fibroblasts in the tumor microenvironment rather than to tumor cells themselves, in contrast to radioligand therapy with prostate-specific membrane antigens. The early wash-out has raised concerns about their therapeutic efficacy [55,56,57]. To overcome the prolonged circulation time of FAP-targeting antibodies, some recent studies have used FAP-targeting small molecules conjugated to radionuclides with shorter physical half-lives. The current research focuses on the further development of radioligands [58,59,60].
FAP-directed therapies have demonstrated objective responses in patients with advanced, treatment-refractory cancers. Nevertheless, larger-scale prospective studies are lacking, especially in HNCUP patients.

5. Conclusions

HNCUP remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, with conventional imaging modalities often failing to identify the primary tumor. While FDG-PET/CT has improved sensitivity compared to MRI and CT, its limitations due to false positives and negatives necessitate alternative imaging approaches. FAPI-PET/CT has emerged as a promising modality, offering high tumor-to-background contrast, superior lesion detection (even in small or non-FDG-avid tumors), and potential impact on clinical decision making. Preliminary findings suggest that FAPI imaging may enhance primary tumor detection in HNCUP patients. Moreover, it holds potential for refining radiation planning by more accurately delineating tumor extent. In the future, FAP-directed radioligand therapy may offer a novel theranostic option for patients with widespread disease and high FAP expression. Despite encouraging results from retrospective cohorts and early prospective studies, large-scale prospective studies are needed to validate the diagnostic superiority and clinical impact of FAPI-PET/CT, particularly in the context of HNCUP. The integration of FAPI-PET/CT into diagnostic algorithms may be a decisive step towards precision imaging and personalized care for patients with HNCUP.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C.K. and R.A.W.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C.K. and R.A.W.; writing—review and editing, G.T.S., M.C. and F.L.G.; visualization, S.C.K.; supervision, R.A.W.; project administration, R.A.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

S.C.K. was funded by the Bavarian Center for Cancer Research (BZKF).

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

R.A.W. is speaker honoraria from Novartis/AAA and PentixaPharm, advisory board work for Novartis/AAA and Bayer. F.L.G. is a medical advisor for ABX Advanced Biochemical Compound, Telix Pharmaceuticals, SOFIE Bioscience, AlfaFusion and RhinePharma, and is the co-inventor of FAP-ligands (FAPI-34, 46, 74) und PSMA-1007.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CTComputed tomography
CUPCancer of unknown primary
FAPFibroblast activation protein
FAPIFibroblast activation protein inhibitor
FDG18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose
HNHead and neck cancer
HNCUPHead and neck cancer of unknown primary
MRIMagnetic resonance imaging
PETPositron emission tomography
SSCSquamous cell carcinoma

References

  1. 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 A Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Grau, C.; Johansen, L.V.; Jakobsen, J.; Geertsen, P.; Andersen, E.; Jensen, B.B. Cervical lymph node metastases from unknown primary tumours. Results from a national survey by the Danish Society for Head and Neck Oncology. Radiother. Oncol. J. Eur. Soc. Ther. Radiol. Oncol. 2000, 55, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Arosio, A.D.; Pignataro, L.; Gaini, R.M.; Garavello, W. Neck lymph node metastases from unknown primary. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2017, 53, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Strojan, P.; Ferlito, A.; Medina, J.E.; Woolgar, J.A.; Rinaldo, A.; Robbins, K.T.; Fagan, J.J.; Mendenhall, W.M.; Paleri, V.; Silver, C.E.; et al. Contemporary management of lymph node metastases from an unknown primary to the neck: I. A review of diagnostic approaches. Head Neck 2013, 35, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Keller, L.M.; Galloway, T.J.; Holdbrook, T.; Ruth, K.; Yang, D.; Dubyk, C.; Flieder, D.; Lango, M.N.; Mehra, R.; Burtness, B.; et al. p16 status, pathologic and clinical characteristics, biomolecular signature, and long-term outcomes in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas of unknown primary. Head Neck 2014, 36, 1677–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Conway, A.M.; Mitchell, C.; Kilgour, E.; Brady, G.; Dive, C.; Cook, N. Molecular characterisation and liquid biomarkers in Carcinoma of Unknown Primary (CUP): Taking the ‘U’ out of ‘CUP’. Br. J. Cancer 2019, 120, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Greco, F.A.; Erlander, M.G. Molecular Classification of Cancers of Unknown Primary Site. Mol. Diagn. Ther. 2009, 13, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pavlidis, N.; Pentheroudakis, G. Cancer of unknown primary site. Lancet 2012, 379, 1428–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Koivunen, P.; Laranne, J.; Virtaniemi, J.; Bäck, L.; Mäkitie, A.; Pulkkinen, J.; Grenman, R. Cervical Metastasis of Unknown Origin: A Series of 72 Patients. Acta Oto-Laryngol. 2002, 122, 569–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nieder, C.; Gregoire, V.; Ang, K.K. Cervical lymph node metastases from occult squamous cell carcinoma: Cut down a tree to get an apple? Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2001, 50, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Haas, I.; Hoffmann, T.K.; Engers, R.; Ganzer, U. Diagnostic strategies in cervical carcinoma of an unknown primary (CUP). Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2002, 259, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, J.R.; Kim, J.S.; Roh, J.-L.; Lee, J.H.; Baek, J.H.; Cho, K.-J.; Choi, S.-H.; Nam, S.Y.; Kim, S.Y. Detection of Occult Primary Tumors in Patients with Cervical Metastases of Unknown Primary Tumors: Comparison of18F FDG PET/CT with Contrast-enhanced CT or CT/MR Imaging—Prospective Study. Radiology 2015, 274, 764–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Singnurkar, A.; Poon, R.; Metser, U. Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging in oncology: A systematic review. Ann. Nucl. Med. 2017, 31, 366–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rusthoven, K.E.; Koshy, M.; Paulino, A.C. The role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in cervical lymph node metastases from an unknown primary tumor. Cancer 2004, 101, 2641–2649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Noij, D.P.; Martens, R.M.; Zwezerijnen, B.; Koopman, T.; de Bree, R.; Hoekstra, O.S.; de Graaf, P.; Castelijns, J.A. Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging and 18F-FDG-PET/CT for the detection of unknown primary head and neck cancer in patients presenting with cervical metastasis. Eur. J. Radiol. 2018, 107, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Martens, R.M.; van der Stappen, R.; Koopman, T.; Noij, D.P.; Comans, E.F.; Zwezerijnen, G.J.; Vergeer, M.R.; Leemans, C.R.; de Bree, R.; Boellaard, R.; et al. The Additional Value of Ultrafast DCE-MRI to DWI-MRI and 18F-FDG-PET to Detect Occult Primary Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Cancers 2020, 12, 2826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fukui, M.B.; Blodgett, T.M.; Snyderman, C.H.; Johnson, J.J.; Myers, E.N.; Townsend, D.W.; Meltzer, C.C. Combined PET-CT in the head and neck: Part 2. Diagnostic uses and pitfalls of oncologic imaging. Radiographics 2005, 25, 913–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Karam, M.B.; Doroudinia, A.; Naini, A.S.; Kaghazchi, F.; Koma, A.Y.; Mehrian, P.; Hossein, F.A. Role of FDG PET/CT Scan in Head and Neck Cancer Patients. Arch. Iran Med. 2017, 20, 452–458. [Google Scholar]
  19. Newbold, K.; Powell, C. PET/CT in Radiotherapy Planning for Head and Neck Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2012, 2, 39080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ciernik, I.; Dizendorf, E.; Baumert, B.G.; Reiner, B.; Burger, C.; Davis, J.; Lütolf, U.M.; Steinert, H.C.; Von Schulthess, G.K. Radiation treatment planning with an integrated positron emission and computer tomography (PET/CT): A feasibility study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2003, 57, 853–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Talaat, O.; Maher, S.; Hassan, M.; Farouk, S. Impact of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in detection of the primary site and change management in patients with metastases of unknown primary. Egypt. J. Nucl. Med. 2019, 19, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Galloway, T.J.; Ridge, J.A. Management of Squamous Cancer Metastatic to Cervical Nodes With an Unknown Primary Site. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 3328–3337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zhu, L.; Wang, N. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography as a diagnostic tool in patients with cervical nodal metastases of unknown primary site: A meta-analysis. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 22, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Szyszko, T.; Cook, G. PET/CT and PET/MRI in head and neck malignancy. Clin. Radiol. 2018, 73, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kalluri, R. The biology and function of fibroblasts in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2016, 16, 582–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Koczorowska, M.; Tholen, S.; Bucher, F.; Lutz, L.; Kizhakkedathu, J.; De Wever, O.; Wellner, U.; Biniossek, M.; Stahl, A.; Lassmann, S.; et al. Fibroblast activation protein-α, a stromal cell surface protease, shapes key features of cancer associated fibroblasts through proteome and degradome alterations. Mol. Oncol. 2015, 10, 40–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rettig, W.J.; Garin-Chesa, P.; Beresford, H.R.; Oettgen, H.F.; Melamed, M.R.; Old, L.J. Cell-surface glycoproteins of human sarcomas: Differential expression in normal and malignant tissues and cultured cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1988, 85, 3110–3114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Scanlan, M.J.; Raj, B.K.; Calvo, B.; Garin-Chesa, P.; Sanz-Moncasi, M.P.; Healey, J.H.; Old, L.J.; Rettig, W.J. Molecular cloning of fibroblast activation protein alpha, a member of the serine protease family selectively expressed in stromal fibroblasts of epithelial cancers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1994, 91, 5657–5661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Giesel, F.L.; Kratochwil, C.; Lindner, T.; Marschalek, M.M.; Loktev, A.; Lehnert, W.; Debus, J.; Jäger, D.; Flechsig, P.; Altmann, A.; et al. 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT: Biodistribution and Preliminary Dosimetry Estimate of 2 DOTA-Containing FAP-Targeting Agents in Patients with Various Cancers. J. Nucl. Med. 2018, 60, 386–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Loktev, A.; Lindner, T.; Mier, W.; Debus, J.; Altmann, A.; Jäger, D.; Giesel, F.; Kratochwil, C.; Barthe, P.; Roumestand, C.; et al. A Tumor-Imaging Method Targeting Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts. J. Nucl. Med. 2018, 59, 1423–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wegen, S.; van Heek, L.; Linde, P.; Claus, K.; Akuamoa-Boateng, D.; Baues, C.; Sharma, S.J.; Schomäcker, K.; Fischer, T.; Roth, K.S.; et al. Head-to-Head Comparison of [68 Ga]Ga-FAPI-46-PET/CT and [18F]F-FDG-PET/CT for Radiotherapy Planning in Head and Neck Cancer. Mol. Imaging Biol. 2022, 24, 986–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. 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]
  33. 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-FDG PET/CT in cancer patients. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 48, 4377–4385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Syed, M.; Flechsig, P.; Liermann, J.; Windisch, P.; Staudinger, F.; Akbaba, S.; Koerber, 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. 2020, 47, 2836–2845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Promteangtrong, C.; Siripongsatian, D.; Jantarato, A.; Kunawudhi, A.; Kiatkittikul, P.; Yaset, S.; Boonkawin, N.; Chotipanich, C. Head-to-Head Comparison of 68Ga-FAPI-46 and 18F-FDG PET/CT for Evaluation of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Single-Center Exploratory Study. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 63, 1155–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gu, B.; Xu, X.; Zhang, J.; Ou, X.; Xia, Z.; Guan, Q.; Hu, S.; Yang, Z.; Song, S. The Added Value of (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary with (18)F-FDG-Negative Findings. J. Nucl. Med. 2022, 63, 875–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gu, B.; Yang, Z.; Du, X.; Xu, X.; Ou, X.; Xia, Z.; Guan, Q.; Hu, S.; Yang, Z.; Song, S. Imaging of Tumor Stroma Using68Ga-FAPI PET/CT to Improve Diagnostic Accuracy of Primary Tumors in Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary: A Comparative Imaging Trial. J. Nucl. Med. 2024, 65, 365–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Eisenmenger, L.B. Non-FDG Radiopharmaceuticals in Head and Neck PET Imaging: Current Techniques and Future Directions. Semin. Ultrasound CT MRI 2019, 40, 424–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chen, H.; Pang, Y.; Wu, J.; Zhao, L.; Hao, B.; Wu, J.; Wei, J.; Wu, S.; Zhao, L.; Luo, Z.; 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. 2020, 47, 1820–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Maghami, E.; Ismaila, N.; Alvarez, A.; Chernock, R.; Duvvuri, U.; Geiger, J.; Gross, N.; Haughey, B.; Paul, D.; Rodriguez, C.; et al. Diagnosis and Management of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Unknown Primary in the Head and Neck: ASCO Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 2570–2596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kothari, P.; Randhawa, P.S.; Farrell, R. Role of tonsillectomy in the search for a squamous cell carcinoma from an unknown primary in the head and neck. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2008, 46, 283–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Cianchetti, M.; Mancuso, A.A.; Amdur, R.J.; Werning, J.W.; Kirwan, J.; Morris, C.G.; Mendenhall, W.M. Diagnostic evaluation of squamous cell carcinoma metastatic to cervical lymph nodes from an unknown head and neck primary site. Laryngoscope 2009, 119, 2348–2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Waltonen, J.D.; Ozer, E.; Schuller, D.E.; Agrawal, A. Tonsillectomy vs. deep tonsil biopsies in detecting occult tonsil tumors. Laryngoscope 2008, 119, 102–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Serfling, S.; Zhi, Y.; Schirbel, A.; Lindner, T.; Meyer, T.; Gerhard-Hartmann, E.; Lapa, C.; Hagen, R.; Hackenberg, S.; Buck, A.K.; et al. Improved cancer detection in Waldeyer’s tonsillar ring by 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT imaging. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2020, 48, 1178–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Leeman, J.E.; Li, J.-G.; Pei, X.; Venigalla, P.; Zumsteg, Z.S.; Katsoulakis, E.; Lupovitch, E.; McBride, S.M.; Tsai, C.J.; Boyle, J.O.; et al. Patterns of Treatment Failure and Postrecurrence Outcomes Among Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Chemoradiotherapy Using Modern Radiation Techniques. JAMA Oncol. 2017, 3, 1487–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, S.; Chen, Z.; Zou, G.; Zheng, S.; Zheng, K.; Zhang, J.; Huang, C.; Yao, S.; Miao, W. Accurate preoperative staging with [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET/CT for patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma: A comparison to 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT. Eur. Radiol. 2022, 32, 6070–6079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Giesel, F.L.; Adeberg, S.; Syed, M.; Lindner, T.; Jiménez-Franco, L.D.; Mavriopoulou, E.; Staudinger, F.; Tonndorf-Martini, E.; Regnery, S.; Rieken, S.; et al. FAPI-74 PET/CT Using Either (18)F-AlF or Cold-Kit (68)Ga Labeling: Biodistribution, Radiation Dosimetry, and Tumor Delineation in Lung Cancer Patients. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 62, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Quinn, B.; Dauer, Z.; Pandit-Taskar, N.; Schoder, H.; Dauer, L.T. Radiation dosimetry of 18F-FDG PET/CT: Incorporating exam-specific parameters in dose estimates. BMC Med. Imaging 2016, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hildingsson, S.; Gebre-Medhin, M.; Zschaeck, S.; Adrian, G. Hypoxia in relationship to tumor volume using hypoxia PET-imaging in head & neck cancer—A scoping review. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 36, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marcus, C.; Sheikhbahaei, S.; Shivamurthy, V.K.N.; Avey, G.; Subramaniam, R.M. PET Imaging for Head and Neck Cancers. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2021, 59, 773–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Privé, B.M.; Boussihmad, M.A.; Timmermans, B.; van Gemert, W.A.; Peters, S.M.B.; Derks, Y.H.W.; van Lith, S.A.M.; Mehra, N.; Nagarajah, J.; Heskamp, S.; et al. Fibroblast activation protein-targeted radionuclide therapy: Background, opportunities, and challenges of first (pre)clinical studies. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2023, 50, 1906–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fu, K.; Pang, Y.; Zhao, L.; Lin, L.; Wu, H.; Sun, L.; Lin, Q.; Chen, H. FAP-targeted radionuclide therapy with [177Lu]Lu-FAPI-46 in metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 49, 1767–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Assadi, M.; Rekabpour, S.J.; Jafari, E.; Divband, G.; Nikkholgh, B.; Amini, H.; Kamali, H.; Ebrahimi, S.; Shakibazad, N.; Jokar, N.; et al. Feasibility and Therapeutic Potential of 177Lu-Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor-46 for Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Cancers: A Preliminary Study. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2021, 46, e523–e530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ferdinandus, J.; Fendler, W.P.; Farolfi, A.; Washington, S.; Mohammad, O.; Pampaloni, M.H.; Scott, P.J.; Rodnick, M.; Viglianti, B.L.; Eiber, M.; et al. PSMA PET Validates Higher Rates of Metastatic Disease for European Association of Urology Biochemical Recurrence Risk Groups: An International Multicenter Study. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 63, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lindner, T.; Loktev, A.; Altmann, A.; Giesel, F.; Kratochwil, C.; Debus, J.; Jäger, D.; Mier, W.; Haberkorn, U. Development of Quinoline-Based Theranostic Ligands for the Targeting of Fibroblast Activation Protein. J. Nucl. Med. 2018, 59, 1415–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kuyumcu, S.; Kovan, B.M.; Sanli, Y.; Buyukkaya, F.; Simsek, D.H.; Özkan, Z.G.; Isik, E.G.; Ekenel, M.; Turkmen, C. Safety of Fibroblast Activation Protein–Targeted Radionuclide Therapy by a Low-Dose Dosimetric Approach Using 177Lu-FAPI04. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2021, 46, 641–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pang, Y.; Zhao, L.; Fang, J.; Chen, J.; Meng, L.; Sun, L.; Wu, H.; Guo, Z.; Lin, Q.; Chen, H. Development of FAPI Tetramers to Improve Tumor Uptake and Efficacy of FAPI Radioligand Therapy. J. Nucl. Med. 2023, 64, 1449–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Loktev, A.; Lindner, T.; Burger, E.-M.; Altmann, A.; Giesel, F.; Kratochwil, C.; Debus, J.; Marme, F.; Jäger, D.; Mier, W.; et al. Development of Fibroblast Activation Protein-Targeted Radiotracers with Improved Tumor Retention. J. Nucl. Med. 2019, 60, 1421–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Liu, Y.; Watabe, T.; Kaneda-Nakashima, K.; Shirakami, Y.; Naka, S.; Ooe, K.; Toyoshima, A.; Nagata, K.; Haberkorn, U.; Kratochwil, C.; et al. Fibroblast activation protein targeted therapy using [177Lu]FAPI-46 compared with [225Ac]FAPI-46 in a pancreatic cancer model. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 49, 871–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kratochwil, C.; Giesel, F.L.; Rathke, H.; Fink, R.; Dendl, K.; Debus, J.; Mier, W.; Jäger, D.; Lindner, T.; Haberkorn, U. [153Sm]Samarium-labeled FAPI-46 radioligand therapy in a patient with lung metastases of a sarcoma. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 48, 3011–3013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. FAPI-PET/CT versus FDG-PET/CT in HNCUP.
Figure 1. FAPI-PET/CT versus FDG-PET/CT in HNCUP.
Cancers 17 02205 g001
Table 1. Overview of FAP-directed diagnostics.
Table 1. Overview of FAP-directed diagnostics.
Higher tumor-to-background ratio (FAPI vs. FDG)[33,34]
Positive FAPI scan in patients with negative FDG scan is possible (higher sensitivity and accuracy)[36]
Fewer diagnostic tonsillectomies due to improved primary detection with FAPI-PET/CT[44]
FAPI-PET/CT is more accurate than FDG at assessing the N0 neck status (100% vs. 29%)[46]
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kunte, S.C.; Sheikh, G.T.; Giesel, F.L.; Canis, M.; Werner, R.A. FAP-Directed Imaging and Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary. Cancers 2025, 17, 2205. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17132205

AMA Style

Kunte SC, Sheikh GT, Giesel FL, Canis M, Werner RA. FAP-Directed Imaging and Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary. Cancers. 2025; 17(13):2205. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17132205

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kunte, Sophie C., Gabriel T. Sheikh, Frederik L. Giesel, Martin Canis, and Rudolf A. Werner. 2025. "FAP-Directed Imaging and Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary" Cancers 17, no. 13: 2205. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17132205

APA Style

Kunte, S. C., Sheikh, G. T., Giesel, F. L., Canis, M., & Werner, R. A. (2025). FAP-Directed Imaging and Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary. Cancers, 17(13), 2205. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17132205

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop