68Ga-FAPI-04 Versus 18F-FDG PET/CT in the Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is commonly expressed in activated stromal fibroblasts in various epithelial tumours. Recently, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 has been used for tumour imaging in positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and to assess factors associated with ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 uptake in HCC.

Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine patients with suspiciously HCC who received both ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT were included in this retrospective study. The results were interpreted by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians independently. The maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUV_max and SUV_mean) were measured in the lesions and liver background, respectively. The tumour-to-background ratio (TBR) was then calculated as lesion’s SUV_max divided by background SUV_mean.

Results: A total of 35 intrahepatic lesions in 25 patients with HCC were finally involved in the statistical analysis. ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT showed a higher sensitivity than ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in detecting intrahepatic HCC lesions (85.7% vs. 57.1%, P = 0.002), including in small (≤ 2 cm in diameter; 68.8% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.008) and well- or moderately-differentiated (83.3% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.031) tumors. SUV_max was comparable between ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 and ¹⁸F-FDG (6.96 ± 5.01 vs. 5.89 ± 3.38, P > 0.05), but the TBR was significantly higher in the ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 group compared with the ¹⁸F-FDG group (11.90 ± 8.35 vs. 3.14 ± 1.59, P < 0.001). SUV_max and the TBR in ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 positive lesions were associated with tumour size (both P < 0.05), but not the remaining clinical and pathological features (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions: ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT is more sensitive than ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in detecting HCC lesions, and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 uptake is correlated mainly with tumour size.

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most frequent primary liver cancer, is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide (1, 2). The majority of HCCs occur in patients with underlying liver disease, mostly as a result of hepatitis B or C virus (HBV or HCV) infection or alcohol abuse (3). Unlike many other malignant tumours, HCC can be diagnosed by imaging based on non-invasive criteria without confirmatory pathology (4). Therefore, imaging plays a critical role in the detection and diagnosis of HCC. Conventional imaging modalities, including computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound, are mainly utilized for anatomical evaluation, with limited value in the assessment of morphologically atypical lesions (5). In contrast, positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) as one of the functional imaging approaches has the potential to provide relevant biological information in HCC and to improve response assessment (6). Furthermore, a subset of HCCs cannot be diagnosed non-invasively either because the patients do not have cirrhosis or the lesions do not follow established enhancement patterns on contrast-enhanced CT or MRI (1, 3). Therefore, molecular imaging with PET/CT offers potential additional advantages to non-invasively confirm a diagnosis of HCC. However, the most widely available clinical PET tracer, ¹⁸F-FDG, shows poor sensitivity for the detection of HCC ranging from 40% to 68%, mainly because of the relatively high glucose-6-phosphatase activity found in low-grade HCC (6). In addition, it is not useful for the detection of small HCC lesions (7, 8). Therefore, several new tracers have been developed and applied for HCC detection, including ¹¹C-acetate, ¹¹C-choline, ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA (9–12).

Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are among the most crucial components of the tumour microenvironment that creates a favourable microenvironment for tumour growth, invasion and metastasis (13, 14). Fibroblast activation protein (FAP), a cell surface glycoprotein belonging to the serine protease family, is commonly expressed in activated stromal fibroblasts in various epithelial tumours (15, 16). Recent investigations indicated that ⁶⁸Ga-labelled FAP inhibitor (FAPI) shows an equal or even improved tumour imaging with lower background uptake in the liver and the brain in comparison to ¹⁸F-FDG in various cancers (17, 18). ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT was also revealed to have high sensitivity in detecting hepatic malignancies (19–21). Therefore, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 may be a potential tracer for visualizing HCC by targeting CAFs that are abundant in the tumour microenvironment. This study aimed to comparatively assess the diagnostic performances of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in HCC and to assess factors associated with the uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 in HCC.

Materials and Methods

Patients

This is a post-hoc analysis of a prior prospective study conducted at the Huashan Hospital of Fudan University. Twenty-nine patients with suspiciously incipient or recurrent HCC determined by clinical manifestations and conventional imaging techniques (CT, MRI and ultrasound) were included in this retrospective study. They underwent both ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT examinations with an interval of one day before surgical treatment. In patients who underwent surgery or biopsy, the definitive diagnosis was confirmed by pathology. In patients who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), HCC diagnosis was based on a specific imaging pattern of hyperenhancement in the arterial phase and washout in the venous or delayed phase, on contrast-enhanced CT or MRI in the setting of liver cirrhosis (1, 3). This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

PET/CT Imaging

Whole-body static FDG PET/CT scans were obtained as a routine procedure on a dedicated PET/CT scanner (Biograph mCT Flow scanner, Siemens, Germany). Whole-body ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT scans were obtained on another PET/CT scanner (μMI510, Union imaging, Shanghai, China) within 60 min after intravenous injection of ~ 185 MBq (~5 mCi) of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04. Low-dose CT scans were obtained for attenuation correction and image fusion. PET images were acquired in the 3D mode, and reconstructed by the ordered subset expectation maximization 3D (OSEM 3D) method.

Because two different PETs were applied in this study, SUVs were normalized after data collection for PET/CT system performance harmonization. NEMA IEC body phantom (Data Spectrum Corporation, Durham, NC, USA) with 6 simulated lesion spheres (diameters of 10 mm, 13 mm, 17 mm, 22 mm, 28 mm and 37 mm, respectively) and 2, 4, 8, and 16 times of background activity (2 kBq/mL of background activity concentration) based on routine scan protocols was applied for SUV normalization.

Image Evaluation

¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT images were interpreted independently by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians blinded to other imaging and pathology results. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) was measured by delineating a spherical region of interest (ROI) for each lesion. The mean standardized uptake value (SUV_mean) of the liver background was measured by drawing a spherical ROI with 2 cm diameter in the non-tumour hepatic parenchyma of the right lobe in each patient. The tumour-to-background ratio (TBR) was calculated by dividing the lesion’s SUV_max with the background SUV_mean. A lesion was considered to be positive on the basis of the visual judgment of elevated uptake in the tumour tissue by 2 experienced nuclear medicine physicians independently, supported by the calculation of the TBRs of ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04, respectively. Any difference of opinion between these two physicians was settled by mutual agreement.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted with the STATA statistical analysis software (StataCorp LLC, version 15.1). Categorical variables were presented as frequency and percentage, and continuous variables as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The McNemar’s test and Fisher exact test were performed to compare categorical variables. Non-parametric tests were carried out for the comparison of continuous variables with non-normal distribution. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was determined to assess the correlation between continuous variables with non-normal distribution. Two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient Characteristics

Twenty-nine patients were included in the current study, including 23 treated by hepatic surgery, 5 administered TACE, and one that underwent biopsy only. Except for 3 patients who were diagnosed with benign hepatic nodules, the remaining 26 patients were diagnosed with HCC. One recurrent HCC case who underwent surgical resection had extensive peritoneal dissemination but no intrahepatic lesions. Therefore, 25 HCC patients with 35 intrahepatic lesions were finally involved in the statistical analysis. The study flowchart is presented in Figure 1. According to microvascular invasion (MVI) number and distribution, 2, 8 and 10 patients were categorized into the M0 (no MVI), M1 (≤ 5 MVI in adjacent liver tissue ≤ 1 cm away from the HCC), and M2 (> 5 MVI or MVI in adjacent liver tissue > 1 cm away from the HCC) groups, respectively. According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) cancer staging system (8th Edition), 5, 10, 4 and 1 patients were categorized into stage I, II;, III and IV, respectively. The general characteristics of the 25 HCC patients are summarized in Table 1.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1 Study flowchart (n = number of patients).

TABLE 1

Table 1 Characteristics of the included HCC patients.

Comparison of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 With ¹⁸F-FDG in Patient-Based Analysis

The results of the patient-based analysis of ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT are summarized in Table 2. Of the 35 intrahepatic HCCs, 20 were tested positive by both ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT, 10 were tested positive by ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT alone, and 5 were not tested positive by either method. ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT showed a better sensitivity in detecting intrahepatic lesions compared with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT (85.7% vs. 57.1%, P = 0.002). In subgroup analysis, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT was more sensitive than ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of intrahepatic lesions in patients with cirrhosis, low α-fetoprotein (AFP), multiple tumours, and non-serious MVI (M0 and M1) (all P < 0.05). Moreover, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT detected 4 of the 5 lesions in patients with stage I disease, whereas ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT did not reveal any abnormal finding in these patients (Figure 2). The sensitivity of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT was associated with AJCC TNM stage (P = 0.016), while that of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT was correlated with serum AFP levels (P = 0.045). These findings suggested that ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT was more sensitive than ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of intrahepatic lesions, particularly in patients with cirrhosis, low AFP, multiple HCCs, and non-serious MVI.

TABLE 2

Table 2 Sensitivities of ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in patient-based analysis.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2 PET/CT images in a 53-year-old male patient with moderately-differentiated HCC. (A) ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT revealed a strongly FAPI-avid lesion (black and white arrows, SUV_max = 7.36, TBR = 6.03) in the right lobe of the liver. (B) No positive finding was observed within liver in ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT images (SUV_max = 2.36, TBR = 1.31).

Comparison of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 With ¹⁸F-FDG in Lesion-Based Analysis

The results of lesion-based analysis of ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT are summarized in Table 3. ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT was more sensitive than ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in detecting small HCCs (≤ 2 cm in diameter) (P = 0.008) and well- or moderately-differentiated HCCs (P = 0.031), but there were no significant sensitivity differences between the 2 tracers in the detection of HCCs > 2 cm in diameter (both P > 0.05) and poorly-differentiated or undifferentiated HCCs (P > 0.05). The sensitivities of ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT were significantly related to the size of intrahepatic lesions (both P < 0.05). These findings indicated that ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT was more sensitive than ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of small and well- or moderately-differentiated HCCs.

TABLE 3

Table 3 Sensitivities of ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in lesion-based analysis.

Uptake Intensities of ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 in HCC

Among the 25 HCC patients with 35 intrahepatic lesions, uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 in positive lesions was assessed, respectively (Table 4). Although the lesion uptake (SUV_max) of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 was similar to that of ¹⁸F-FDG (P > 0.05), its TBR was significantly higher than that of ¹⁸F-FDG (P < 0.001) (Figure 3A). Particularly, the background uptake (SUV_mean) of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 was much lower than that of ¹⁸F-FDG in each patient. The SUV_mean of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 in patients with cirrhosis was significantly higher than that of patients without cirrhosis (0.76 ± 0.39 vs. 0.40 ± 0.07, P < 0.001); however, no significant difference was obtained in SUV_mean of ¹⁸F-FDG between these two groups (1.82 ± 0.39 vs. 1.97 ± 0.44, P > 0.05) (Figure 3B).

TABLE 4

Table 4 Uptake intensities of ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 in positive lesions.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3 (A) Comparison of uptake intensity (SUV_max and TBR) between ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04. (B) Comparison of background uptake (SUV_mean) between patients with cirrhosis or those without cirrhosis. (C) Spearman rank correlation analysis of uptake intensity (SUV_max and TBR) and tumour diameter in ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04. NS, not statistically significant; ***, P < 0.001.

The SUV_max of ¹⁸F-FDG in positive lesions was associated with the degree of MVI (P = 0.048) and tumour differentiation (P = 0.045), while the TBR was only associated with tumour differentiation (P = 0.045). In contrast, the SUV_max and TBR of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 in positive lesions were associated only with tumour size (both P < 0.05), but not with other clinical and pathological features (all P > 0.05). In Spearman correlation analysis (Figure 3C), the SUV_max and TBR of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 in positive lesions were correlated with tumour size (rSUV_max = 0.43, rTBR = 0.53, both P < 0.05). Further subgroup analysis revealed these correlations in poorly-differentiated or undifferentiated HCCs (rSUV_max = 0.69, rTBR = 0.62, both P < 0.05), rather than well- or moderately-differentiated ones (both P > 0.05). For ¹⁸F-FDG, SUV_max, but not TBR, was correlated with tumour size (rSUV_max = 0.48, P = 0.033). However, neither SUV_max nor TBR exhibited a correlation with tumour size in subgroup analysis (all P > 0.05).

Characteristics of Extrahepatic Metastases and Other Benign Lesions

Lymph node metastasis in one patient with poorly-differentiated HCC showed strong uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04, but undetectable uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG (Figure 4). ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT detected a small metastatic lesion that was not revealed by ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in another HCC patient with extensive peritoneal dissemination (Figure 5).

FIGURE 4

Figure 4 PET/CT images in a 51-year-old male patient with poorly-differentiated HCC and regional lymph node metastasis. (A) ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT revealed a strongly FAPI-avid lesion (black and white arrows, SUV_max = 6.67, TBR = 15.2) that was pathologically confirmed as lymph node metastasis of the porta hepatis. (B) ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT showed no elevated uptake of this extrahepatic metastasis (SUV_max = 2.84, TBR = 1.04).

FIGURE 5

Figure 5 PET/CT images in a 53-year-old male patient with recurrent HCC and extensive peritoneal dissemination. (A) In ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT, a small metastatic lesion confirmed by pathology showed elevated uptake (black and white arrows, SUV_max = 4.72, TBR = 11). (B) ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT did not detect this metastatic lesion (SUV_max = 1.27, TBR = 0.63).

Of the benign lesions, angiomyolipoma (AML) presented strong uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 (SUV_max = 8.34 and TBR = 21.92) and mildly increased uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG (SUV_max = 2.70 and TBR = 1.54), whereas focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) presented elevated uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 (SUV_max = 2.20 and TBR = 5.77) and negative uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG (SUV_max = 1.51 and TBR = 0.86). In two cases of inflammatory nodules in the liver, one showed positive uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 (SUV_max = 1.56 and TBR = 3.08) and negative uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG (SUV_max = 2.14 and TBR = 1.19), while the other was neither ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 avid (SUV_max = 0.53 and TBR = 1.20) nor ¹⁸F-FDG avid (SUV_max = 2.92 and TBR = 1.36).

Discussion

Nowadays, ¹⁸F-FDG as the most widely available clinical PET tracer has been increasingly utilized for detecting extrahepatic metastases (22), TNM staging (23), selecting patients for liver transplantation (23), and predicting tumour progression or recurrence after treatments (24, 25). However, ¹⁸F-FDG has limited value in the early diagnosis of HCC because of its low sensitivity (6, 26). Therefore, there remains an urgent need for highly sensitive tracers in the early diagnosis of HCC by PET/CT. Recently, ⁶⁸Ga-labelled FAPI was shown to be a novel tracer in PET/CT imaging of various cancers due to its high tumour-to-background contrast (17, 27). Furthermore, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT has high sensitivity in detecting hepatic malignancies, including HCC and ICC (19, 21).

In line with previous studies reporting a range from 40% to 68%, the sensitivity of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of HCC was 57.1% in the present study (6). ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT had a better sensitivity (85.7%) than ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of intrahepatic lesions in HCC patients. Of note, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT was capable of detecting more than half of small HCC lesions (11 of 16, ≤ 2 cm in diameter) in the present cohort, whereas ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT detected only three of the 16 lesions, which is consistent with previous studies that consider ¹⁸F-FDG an inappropriate tracer for visualizing small HCCs (7, 8). Furthermore, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT exhibited a relatively higher sensitivity in the detection of well- or moderately-differentiated HCCs (10 of 12, histologic grade I or II) compared with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT (4 of 12). The poor sensitivity of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in detecting low-grade HCC is probably related to enhanced glucose-6-phosphatase activity causing the dephosphorylation of ¹⁸F-FDG-6-PO₄, which is therefore not trapped in HCC cells, resulting in false-negative results (6, 28, 29).

In contrast, a CAF-targeting tracer can circumvent highly heterogeneous avidity exhibited by some tracers that target the tumour per se, because CAFs are among the most abundant stromal components in the tumour microenvironment of many solid tumours, and are found even at the early stages of tumorigenesis (30, 31). The above correlation analysis of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 revealed that neither positive incidence nor uptake intensity was associated with tumour differentiation. Moreover, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 showed a high lesion-to-background contrast in the liver, which may partially increase sensitivity that is affected by the partial volume effect of PET/CT. As such, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT can make up for the deficiencies of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of low-grade HCC. Additionally, a higher detection rate was observed with ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in high-grade HCC in comparison with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT, although this difference was not statistically significant. Therefore, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT appears to be a promising new approach for the detection of intrahepatic HCC lesions with higher sensitivity compared with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT.

⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT could not detect 5 intrahepatic HCC lesions with the diameter within 2 cm in this cohort. These negative results may be due to the similar uptake intensity of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 between small HCC lesions and the liver background of cirrhosis. Hypoxia may be a reasonable explanation for the positive correlation between the uptake intensity of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 and tumour size. It has been reported that the degree of hypoxia correlates positively with tumour size (32) and that hypoxia is a potent factor inducing the expression of FAP in CAFs (33). Therefore, the degree of hypoxia is mild in small HCCs, leading to the low uptake of ⁶⁸GA-FAPI-04 in these lesions. In the cirrhotic liver, FAP is strongly expressed by activated hepatic stellate cells (34, 35). In line with a previous study (19), this work also found that patients with cirrhosis presented elevated uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 in the hepatic parenchyma compared with those without cirrhosis. Therefore, small lesions have relatively lower uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 in comparison with large ones, which makes them susceptible to being masked by the background of cirrhosis.

Although ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT has a potential value in detecting extrahepatic metastases in HCC patients (7, 8, 36, 37), heterogeneous uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG in metastatic nodules remains a major reason limiting its wide application for tumour staging. CAFs play a critical role in constructing a microenvironment that favours tumour progression at the primary site, and are, moreover, responsible for creating a pre-metastatic niche in distal organs and triggering the subsequent metastatic events (30, 31, 38). Therefore, CAF-targeting tracers seem to be optimal candidates for PET/CT in the evaluation of extrahepatic metastases. In the present study, lymph node metastasis at the porta hepatis in one patient with poorly-differentiated HCC presented a clear visualization in ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT, but an obscure image in ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT (Figure 4). Separately, one small metastatic lesion in another recurrent HCC case with extensive peritoneal dissemination was only clearly visualised by ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT (Figure 5). It appears that ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT may outperform ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in detecting extrahepatic lesions in patients with advanced HCC. Nevertheless, the comparison of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 with ¹⁸F-FDG in terms of applicability to the detection of extrahepatic metastasis of HCC needs to be clarified in future studies.

Despite the high sensitivity of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the detection of malignancies, some benign lesions confirmed by pathological examinations in the current cohort presented positive results as well. Especially, AML, FNH, and one of two inflammatory nodules presented elevated uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 in contrast to the hepatic background, perhaps because of the enhanced fibrosis around or within lesions. Moreover, increasing uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 was observed in the postoperative area of the liver in one patient with recurrent HCC, which is consistent with a previous study that considered ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 an inappropriate tracer for the discrimination between abnormal malignant progression and normal postoperative reaction (39). Nevertheless, negligible ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 uptake has been observed in some other benign hepatic lesions such as adenoma (20, 39), dysplastic nodule (20), granuloma (21), and haemangioma (21). Collectively, great caution should be exercised when regarding intrahepatic lesions with elevated uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 as malignancy.

There were several limitations in the present study. First, it is unethical to biopsy all lesions as part of a research study, although that is perhaps not practical or needed. As a result, the lack of pathological data in 5 HCC patients whose confirmative diagnosis was based on non-invasive criteria may yield latent bias. Another limitation is that the present cohort only included a small number of patients with suspicious HCC who were willing to receive both ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT examinations. Therefore, selection bias was inevitable. Finally, different scanners were used in this study for ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 and ¹⁸F-FDG imaging because of the different production places of PET tracers. For this reason, SUV normalization was applied after data collection for PET/CT system performance harmonization.

Conclusions

⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT is more sensitive than ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in detecting intrahepatic HCCs. This outperformance is more prominent in the detection of small and well- or moderately-differentiated HCCs. The uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 was correlated mainly with tumour size in this study; therefore, ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT can be considered a very promising imaging modality in HCC diagnosis.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by ethics committee at Huashan Hospital of Fudan University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author Contributions

LQ, FX, LL, WZ, and HW designed the study, interpreted the data and led the writing and review of the manuscript. HW, HJ, JC, WZ, and LL enrolled patients and collected clinical data. YG, JZ, QH, YK, and SR performed examinations. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This study was funded by the Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (81930074), the Major Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (91959203), the Shanghai Sailing Program (18YF1403200), the Start-up fund of Huashan Hospital, Fudan University (2017QD081), and the Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty (shslczdzk03402).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the excellent technical assistance of the staff at the PET Centre and the Department of General Surgery, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University.

References

1. Forner A, Reig M, Bruix J. Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Lancet (2018) 391(10127):1301–14. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30010-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Yang JD, Hainaut P, Gores GJ, Amadou A, Plymoth A, Roberts LR. A Global View of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Trends, Risk, Prevention and Management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol (2019) 16(10):589–604. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0186-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Villanueva A. Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med (2019) 380(15):1450–62. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1713263

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, Zhu AX, Finn RS, Abecassis MM, et al. Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology (2018) 68(2):723–50. doi: 10.1002/hep.29913

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Oliva MR, Saini S. Liver Cancer Imaging: Role of CT, MRI, US and PET. Cancer Imaging (2004) 4 Spec No A(Spec No A):S42–6. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2004.0011

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Goh V, Sarker D, Osmany S, Cook GJ. Functional Imaging Techniques in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2012) 39(6):1070–9. doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2096-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Trojan J, Schroeder O, Raedle J, Baum RP, Herrmann G, Jacobi V, et al. Fluorine-18 FDG Positron Emission Tomography for Imaging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol (1999) 94(11):3314–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01544.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Park JW, Kim JH, Kim SK, Kang KW, Park KW, Choi JI, et al. A Prospective Evaluation of 18F-FDG and 11C-Acetate PET/CT for Detection of Primary and Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Nucl Med (2008) 49(12):1912–21. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.055087

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Ho CL, Chen S, Yeung DW, Cheng TK. Dual-Tracer PET/CT Imaging in Evaluation of Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Nucl Med (2007) 48(6):902–9. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.106.036673

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Castilla-Lièvre MA, Franco D, Gervais P, Kuhnast B, Agostini H, Marthey L, et al. Diagnostic Value of Combining ¹¹C-Choline and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2016) 43(5):852–9. doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3241-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Kesler M, Levine C, Hershkovitz D, Mishani E, Menachem Y, Lerman H, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA is a Novel PET-CT Tracer for Imaging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Pilot Study. J Nucl Med (2019) 60(2):185–91. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.214833

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Lopci E, Torzilli G, Poretti D, de Neto LJ, Donadon M, Rimassa L, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of ¹¹C-Choline PET/CT in Comparison With CT and/or MRI in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2015) 42(9):1399–407. doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3079-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Kubo N, Araki K, Kuwano H, Shirabe K. Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol (2016) 22(30):6841–50. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i30.6841

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Baglieri J, Brenner DA, Kisseleva T. The Role of Fibrosis and Liver-Associated Fibroblasts in the Pathogenesis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Int J Mol Sci (2019) 20(7):1723. doi: 10.3390/ijms20071723

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Garin-Chesa P, Old LJ, Rettig WJ. Cell Surface Glycoprotein of Reactive Stromal Fibroblasts as a Potential Antibody Target in Human Epithelial Cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1990) 87(18):7235–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.18.7235

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Scanlan MJ, Raj BK, Calvo B, Garin-Chesa P, Sanz-Moncasi MP, Healey JH, et al. 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(12):5657–61. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.12.5657

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Giesel FL, Kratochwil C, Lindner T, Marschalek MM, Loktev A, Lehnert W, 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(3):386–92. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.215913

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Chen H, Pang Y, Wu J, Zhao L, Hao B, Wu J, et al. Comparison of [(68)Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [(18)F] 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(8):1820–32. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-04769-z

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Shi X, Xing H, Yang X, Li F, Yao S, Zhang H, et al. Fibroblast Imaging of Hepatic Carcinoma With (68)Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT: A Pilot Study in Patients With Suspected Hepatic Nodules. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2020) 48(1):196–203. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-04882-z

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Guo W, Pang Y, Yao L, Zhao L, Fan C, Ke J, et al. Imaging Fibroblast Activation Protein in Liver Cancer: A Single-Center Post HOC Retrospective Analysis to Compare [(68)Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT Versus MRI and [(18)F]-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2021) 48(5):1604–17. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-05095-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Shi X, Xing H, Yang X, Li F, Yao S, Congwei J, et al. Comparison of PET Imaging of Activated Fibroblasts and (18)F-FDG for Diagnosis of Primary Hepatic Tumours: A Prospective Pilot Study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2020) 48(5):1593–603. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-05070-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Lin CY, Chen JH, Liang JA, Lin CC, Jeng LB, Kao CH. 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for Detecting Extrahepatic Metastases or Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Radiol (2012) 81(9):2417–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.08.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Cheung TT, Ho CL, Lo CM, Chen S, Chan SC, Chok KS, et al. 11C-Acetate and 18F-FDG PET/CT for Clinical Staging and Selection of Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma for Liver Transplantation on the Basis of Milan Criteria: Surgeon’s Perspective. J Nucl Med (2013) 54(2):192–200. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.107516

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Hong G, Suh KS, Suh SW, Yoo T, Kim H, Park MS, et al. Alpha-Fetoprotein and (18)F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography Predict Tumor Recurrence Better Than Milan Criteria in Living Donor Liver Transplantation. J Hepatol (2016) 64(4):852–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.11.033

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Song MJ, Bae SH, Lee SW, Song DS, Kim HY, Yoo Ie R, et al. 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT Predicts Tumour Progression After Transarterial Chemoembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2013) 40(6):865–73. doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2366-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Ayuso C, Rimola J, Vilana R, Burrel M, Darnell A, García-Criado Á, et al. Diagnosis and Staging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): Current Guidelines. Eur J Radiol (2018) 101:72–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.025

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Kratochwil C, Flechsig P, Lindner T, Abderrahim L, Altmann A, Mier W, et al. (68)Ga-FAPI PET/CT: Tracer Uptake in 28 Different Kinds of Cancer. J Nucl Med (2019) 60(6):801–5. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.227967

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Torizuka T, Tamaki N, Inokuma T, Magata Y, Sasayama S, Yonekura Y, et al. In Vivo Assessment of Glucose Metabolism in Hepatocellular Carcinoma With FDG-PET. J Nucl Med (1995) 36(10):1811–7.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

29. Gallagher BM, Fowler JS, Gutterson NI, MacGregor RR, Wan CN, Wolf AP. Metabolic Trapping as a Principle of Oradiopharmaceutical Design: Some Factors Resposible for the Biodistribution of [18F] 2-Deoxy-2-Fluoro-D-Glucose. J Nucl Med (1978) 19(10):1154–61.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

30. Kalluri R. The Biology and Function of Fibroblasts in Cancer. Nat Rev Cancer (2016) 16(9):582–98. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2016.73

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Chen X, Song E. Turning Foes to Friends: Targeting Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts. Nat Rev Drug Discovery (2019) 18(2):99–115. doi: 10.1038/s41573-018-0004-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Carmona-Bozo JC, Manavaki R, Woitek R, Torheim T, Baxter GC, Caracò C, et al. Hypoxia and Perfusion in Breast Cancer: Simultaneous Assessment Using PET/MR Imaging. Eur Radiol (2021) 31(1):333–44. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07067-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Ammirante M, Shalapour S, Kang Y, Jamieson CA, Karin M. Tissue Injury and Hypoxia Promote Malignant Progression of Prostate Cancer by Inducing CXCL13 Expression in Tumor Myofibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2014) 111(41):14776–81. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1416498111

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Levy MT, McCaughan GW, Abbott CA, Park JE, Cunningham AM, Müller E, et al. Fibroblast Activation Protein: A Cell Surface Dipeptidyl Peptidase and Gelatinase Expressed by Stellate Cells at the Tissue Remodelling Interface in Human Cirrhosis. Hepatology (1999) 29(6):1768–78. doi: 10.1002/hep.510290631

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Wang XM, Yu DM, McCaughan GW, Gorrell MD. Fibroblast Activation Protein Increases Apoptosis, Cell Adhesion, and Migration by the LX-2 Human Stellate Cell Line. Hepatology (2005) 42(4):935–45. doi: 10.1002/hep.20853

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Khan MA, Combs CS, Brunt EM, Lowe VJ, Wolverson MK, Solomon H, et al. Positron Emission Tomography Scanning in the Evaluation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Hepatol (2000) 32(5):792–7. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(00)80248-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Sugiyama M, Sakahara H, Torizuka T, Kanno T, Nakamura F, Futatsubashi M, et al. 18F-FDG PET in the Detection of Extrahepatic Metastases From Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Gastroenterol (2004) 39(10):961–8. doi: 10.1007/s00535-004-1427-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Liu Y, Cao X. Characteristics and Significance of the Pre-Metastatic Niche. Cancer Cell (2016) 30(5):668–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.09.011

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Chen H, Zhao L, Ruan D, Pang Y, Hao B, Dai Y, et al. Usefulness of [(68)Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in Patients Presenting With Inconclusive [(18)F]FDG PET/CT Findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2021) 48(1):73–86. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-04940-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar