Research ArticleTheranostics
Open Access

FAPI-74 PET/CT Using Either 18F-AlF or Cold-Kit 68Ga Labeling: Biodistribution, Radiation Dosimetry, and Tumor Delineation in Lung Cancer Patients

Frederik L. Giesel, Sebastian Adeberg, Mustafa Syed, Thomas Lindner, Luis David Jiménez-Franco, Eleni Mavriopoulou, Fabian Staudinger, Eric Tonndorf-Martini, Sebastian Regnery, Stefan Rieken, Rami El Shafie, Manuel Röhrich, Paul Flechsig, Andreas Kluge, Annette Altmann, Jürgen Debus, Uwe Haberkorn and Clemens Kratochwil
Journal of Nuclear Medicine February 2021, 62 (2) 201-207; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.245084

Abstract

68Ga-fibroblast activation protein inhibitors (FAPIs) 2, 4, and 46 have already been proposed as promising PET tracers. However, the short half-life of 68Ga (68 min) creates problems with manufacture and delivery. 18F (half-life, 110 min) labeling would result in a more practical large-scale production, and a cold-kit formulation would improve the spontaneous availability. The NOTA chelator ligand FAPI-74 can be labeled with both 18F-AlF and 68Ga. Here, we describe the in vivo evaluation of 18F-FAPI-74 and a proof of mechanism for 68Ga-FAPI-74 labeled at ambient temperature. Methods: In 10 patients with lung cancer, PET scans were acquired at 10 min, 1 h, and 3 h after administration of 259 ± 26 MBq of 18F-FAPI-74. Physiologic biodistribution and tumor uptake were semiquantitatively evaluated on the basis of SUV at each time point. Absorbed doses were evaluated using OLINDA/EXM, version 1.1, and QDOSE dosimetry software with the dose calculator IDAC-Dose, version 2.1. Identical methods were used to evaluate one examination after injection of 263 MBq of 68Ga-FAPI-74. Results: The highest contrast was achieved in primary tumors, lymph nodes, and distant metastases at 1 h after injection, with an SUVmax of more than 10. The effective dose per a 100-MBq administered activity of 18F-FAPI-74 was 1.4 ± 0.2 mSv, and for 68Ga-FAPI-74 it was 1.6 mSv. Thus, the radiation burden of a diagnostic 18F-FAPI-74 PET scan is even lower than that of PET scans with 18F-FDG and other 18F tracers; 68Ga-FAPI-74 is comparable to other 68Ga ligands. FAPI PET/CT supported target volume definition for guiding radiotherapy. Conclusion: The high contrast and low radiation burden of FAPI-74 PET/CT favor multiple clinical applications. Centralized large-scale production of 18F-FAPI-74 or decentralized cold-kit labeling of 68Ga-FAPI-74 allows flexible routine use.

Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is highly expressed in the stroma of a variety of human cancers and is therefore considered promising for guiding targeted therapy (1). Quinoline-based FAP inhibitors (FAPIs) specifically bind to the enzymatic domain of FAP and are then internalized (2). Methods for conjugation of quinoline-based FAP ligands with chelators suitable for radiolabeling with various radiometals were developed (3,4). Labeled with the positron emitter 68Ga, these novel FAP-targeted tracers demonstrated tumor-to-nontumor contrast ratios that were equal to or even higher than those attained with 18F-FDG PET/CT (5).

Although 68Ga is available via approved 68Ge/68Ga generators, which allow batch production of approximately 2–3 patient doses per elution, the relatively short half-life of 68Ga (68 min, 1.90-MeV positron energy) poses some disadvantages with respect to production capacity and nuclear decay properties. The short half-life mandates in-house production, making delivery to remote centers challenging. In large centers with high patient throughput, several productions per day are required to meet potential demands, occupying a skilled workforce of radiochemists and radiopharmacists over a protracted period of the work day. If 68Ga-FAPI PET were to replace 18F-FDG PET in clinical routine, multiple generators would be needed, thus multiplying costs. Labeling with 18F (half-life, 110 min, 0.65-MeV positron energy) would solve these issues. Centers with an on-site cyclotron can produce 18F at moderate cost, and commercial sites can distribute 18F-labeled compounds over a wide metropolitan area, eliminating the need for on-site radiochemistry (6). The lower positron energy of 18F could theoretically improve spatial resolution (7).

As described in a dedicated chemistry/preclinical article (submitted for publication simultaneously), attempts to label FAPIs with covalently attached 18F were initially unsuccessful by demonstrating poor tumor uptake. In contrast, chelation of AlF, an approach that was proposed several years ago and has now been optimized with regard to labeling yield and specific activity (8), presented favorable results in combination with the NOTA-containing FAPI-74. The NOTA chelator also allows chelation with 68Ga at room temperature, which would also simplify local on-demand production in centers that already own a 68Ge/68Ga generator.

The aim of this work is to analyze the time-dependent tumor uptake and tracer biodistribution and to estimate absorbed dose for 18F-FAPI-74 PET/CT scans using examinations that were done under a medical indication to assist tumor volume delineation for guiding radiotherapy in lung cancer patients. In addition, we demonstrate proof of mechanism for 68Ga-FAPI-74 PET/CT after tracer labeling at ambient temperature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients

This analysis includes 10 patients (4 male, 6 female) with lung cancer (8 with adenocarcinoma, 2 with squamous cell carcinoma) and a median age of 65 y (range, 45–77 y). All patients gave written informed consent to undergo 68Ga-FAPI-74 PET/CT following national regulations and the Declaration of Helsinki. The radiopharmaceutical was produced in accordance with the German Pharmaceuticals Act, §13(2b). All patients were referred by a radiation oncologist, in order to improve tumor delineation for radiotherapy planning of central pulmonary lesions that would presumably have been challenging to discriminate from the myocardium with 18F-FDG PET. The retrospective evaluation of data acquired under clinical indication was approved by the ethical committee of Heidelberg University (permit S016/2018).

Radiopharmaceuticals

Chelation with 18F-AlF was performed using the method of McBride et al. (8) as follows: 2–10 GBq of 18F fluoride (ZAG Cyclotron AG) in 4 mL of water were trapped on an anion exchange cartridge (Waters Accel Plus QMA Light cartridge, preconditioned with 5 mL of 0.5 M NaOAc, pH 3.9, and 10 mL of water) and eluted with 0.30 mL of 0.5 M NaOAc, pH 3.9. The solution was incubated with 6 μL of AlCl3 in water (10 mM) and 300 μL of dimethyl sulfoxide (Simga-Aldrich) for 5 min at room temperature before 20 μL of a solution of FAPI-74 (4 mM) were added. The reaction was performed at 95°C for 15 min, cooled to room temperature, diluted with 5 mL of water, and worked up by solid-phase extraction (Waters Oasis HLB Plus Light cartridge). The final product was eluted with 0.5 mL of ethanol and 5 mL of 0.9% saline and spiked with phosphate buffer before sterile filtration (Filtropur S 0.2; Sarstedt).

Chelation with 68Ga was achieved by adding 1.00 mL of 68Ge/68Ga generator eluate (0.6 M hydrochloric adic; ∼1.2 GBq) to a mixture of 15 μL of FAPI-74 solution (4 mM in water), 310 μL of sodium acetate (2.5 M in water), and 0.50 mL of ethanol. After incubation for 15 min at room temperature, the reaction was worked up by solid-phase extraction as described for 18F-FAPI-74.

PET/CT Imaging

All imaging was performed on a Biograph mCT Flow scanner (Siemens). PET was performed in 3-dimensional mode (matrix, 200 × 200) using FlowMotion (Siemens). The emission data were corrected for randoms, scatter, and decay. Reconstruction was performed with ordered-subset expectation maximization using 2 iterations and 21 subsets, as well as Gauss filtering to a transaxial resolution of 5 mm in full width at half maximum; attenuation was corrected using the unenhanced low-dose CT images. The CT scans were reconstructed to a slice thickness of 5 mm and an increment of 3 mm using a soft-tissue reconstruction kernel (B30) with CareDose (Siemens). All patients were imaged at 10 min, 1 h, and 3 h after injection of either 259 ± 26 MBq (range, 198–290 MBq) of 18F-FAPI-74 (in 10 patients) or 263 MBq of 68Ga-FAPI-74 (in 1 patient).

FAPI-Based Target Volume of Primary Tumors

The acquired 18F-FAPI-74 PET/CT examinations were used to assist tumor volume delineation for guiding radiotherapy in patients with lung cancer, similar to previous use of 18F-FDG PET/CT (9,10). Target volume was defined using Siemens Syngo.via software (Siemens). CT-based gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were contoured on soft-tissue and lung windows using contrast-enhanced examinations. PET-based GTVs (FAPI GTVs) were assessed by comparing tumor SUVs with healthy surrounding tissue using Syngo’s auto-contour algorithm at various SUV thresholds. Two segmentation approaches were considered: either the background level multiplied by a certain number or the percentage of SUVmax. Contours were manually adjusted, checked for plausibility, and corrected for false-positive or -negative uptake by 2 experienced radiation oncologists and 2 nuclear medicine physicians, board-certified in their respective specialties. In clinical practice, because defining the radiation field is inherently a subjective task, a consensus of expert readers is usually considered the best applicable standard of reference.

Biodistribution

For calculation of the SUV, circular regions of interest were drawn around the tumor lesions with focally increased uptake in transaxial slices and automatically adapted to a 3-dimensional volume of interest (VOI) with e.soft software (Siemens) at a 40% isocontour. The tracer biodistribution in patients was quantified by SUVmean and SUVmax at 10 min, 1 h, and 3 h after injection of 18F-FAPI-74. The normal organs (brain, oral mucosa, parotid, thyroid, lung, heart muscle, aortic lumen content, liver, pancreas, spleen, kidney, colon, muscle, fat, and spinal cord) were evaluated with a 2-cm sphere placed inside the organ parenchyma. Statistical analysis and graphic output were performed with SigmaPlot.

Radiation Dosimetry Estimate

The dosimetry analysis was performed using the QDOSE dosimetry software suite, version 1.1.4 (ABX-CRO).

After all PET and corresponding CT data were imported into the QDOSE software, CT images were coregistered using an automatic rigid coregistration algorithm. PET images were coupled to the CT image of the corresponding imaging time point and manually coregistered to this CT image when necessary. The frame acquisition time was adjusted from the start of the scan (standard for DICOM header) to the middle of the acquisition frame (difference of 9.6 ± 1.2 min), which appears more appropriate for pharmacokinetic evaluation.

Kidneys, liver, spleen, urinary bladder content, red marrow, heart content, and remainder of body were considered source organs. According to an established model, the red marrow activity was approximated by extrapolating activity retrieved from VOIs in lumbar vertebrae 1–5 (∼12.3% of the red marrow space) to the total red marrow (11).

Because the limbs were cropped by the limited field of view of the PET scan, the total-body cumulated activity (ÃTotal_Body), which is important to determine the cumulated activity in the remainder of the body for dose calculations, was estimated using the injected activity (A) and the effective half-life (Teff) of a VOI covering most the body. Thus, the total-body cumulated activity was calculated as:Embedded Image

For segmentation of the source organs, VOIs were defined for the kidneys (left and right), liver, spleen, urinary bladder, heart, lumbar vertebrae (L1–L5) and total body. Tumor areas were not considered in the segmented VOIs. Each source organ was manually segmented on the PET images at each time point, and activity values were retrieved to determine the time–activity curves for the organs. The volumes of the liver, kidneys, and spleen were determined from segmentation in the CT images. The calculation of the masses (assuming a density of 1.06 g/cm3) was automatically performed in QDOSE on the basis of the segmented VOIs in the CT images.

The time–activity curve for the kidneys was automatically calculated as the sum of the activities in the left and right kidneys. Monoexponential curve fitting was then applied to all organ time–activity curves. The fitted time–activity curves were then integrated from time 0 min to infinity to obtain the cumulated time–activity (Ã) values. The à values of the total body and red marrow were added as organs into QDOSE as external calculations for these organs were performed. The à of the remainder of the body was automatically calculated by subtracting the à of all source organs from the total-body Ã. Residence times were calculated by dividing the à of each source organ by the injected activity and further exported to OLINDA/EXM, version 1.1 (12), for dose calculation with this software.

Absorbed and effective dose were calculated using OLINDA/EXM (12), with the residence times exported from QDOSE. In addition, the IDAC-Dose, version 2.1, dose calculator (13) integrated in QDOSE was also used to perform dose estimations. IDAC-Dose is based on the adult reference computational phantoms of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (14) and on the ICRP specific absorbed fractions (15). Organ masses for the kidneys, liver, and spleen, obtained from the segmentation in the CT images, were individually adapted for each patient both in QDOSE (using IDAC-Dose) and in OLINDA/EXM to obtain more accurate dose estimations.

RESULTS

Adverse Events

The mean administered activity of 18F-FAPI-74 was 259 ± 26 MBq (range, 198–290 MBq); for the 68Ga-FAPI-74 examination, it was 263 MBq. After quality control, the specific activities of 18F-FAPI-74 were 20–50 nmol/GBq (14.7–36.8 μg/GBq); the specific activity of 68Ga-FAPI-74 was about 100 nmol/GBq (73.6 μg/GBq) and was only moderately worsened by physical decay during the short delay between on-site labeling and injection. Thus, the administered masses of FAPI-74 (735.8 g/mol) were about 5–40 μg per patient dose. All patients tolerated the examination well. No drug-related pharmacologic effects or physiologic responses occurred. All observed parameters remained normal and unchanged during and after the examination. No patient reported subjective symptoms during the 3.5-h observation period after tracer injection.

Normal-Organ Biodistribution and Tumor Uptake

The biodistribution of 18F-FAPI-74 in normal organs and tumor is presented in Figure 1 and illustrated as time-dependent maximum-intensity projections in Figure 2. In contrast to the previous 68Ga-FAPI-2 and 68Ga-FAPI-4 (5), the oral mucosa uptake did not exceed the background in muscle and connective tissue. Another difference was a moderately higher blood-pool uptake, both on the initial imaging and on the delayed imaging. Blood-pool and muscle uptake did not differ from that with 68Ga-FAPI-2/4, but with 18F-FAPI-74, vessels were definable at all time points. According to our previous FAPI tracers, there was no uptake of 18F-FAPI-74 in the liver or spleen exceeding the perfusion-dependent background. Within this small sample size, the tumor uptake of adenocarcinoma versus squamous cell carcinoma showed no difference, nor was it different from that found previously with 68Ga-FAPI-4 (16). In primary lung tumors, the average SUVmax was 11.8 at 10 min, 12.7 at 1 h, and 11.3 at 3 h after injection. Lymph node metastases had an SUVmax of 9.9 at 10 min, 10.7 at 1 h, and 9.4 at 3 h. Distant metastases demonstrated an average SUVmax of 11.8 at 10 min, 11.8 at 1 h, and 11.4 at 3 h. Therefore, the uptake generally peaked later than 10 min after injection, but there was already some washout from tumor tissue between 1 and 3 h after injection; therefore, the best contrast between tumor and background was achieved at 1 h after injection, and this time point was consecutively used to evaluate GTV delineation for guiding radiotherapy. The patient receiving 68Ga-FAPI-74 is presented in Figure 3 and presents similar kinetics, with tumor SUVmax being 10.4 at 10 min, 11.4 at 1 h, and 8.7 at 3 h.

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.

Time-dependent biodistribution of 18F-FAPI-74 in normal organs and tumor.

FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.

(A) Maximum-intensity projections of 18F-FAPI-74 PET at 10 min, 1 h, and 3 h after injection. (B) FAPI PET/CT presents favorable discrimination between tumor and myocardium. (C–E) Some FAPI-positive lesions were confirmed by CT correlate (C), whereas additional bone lesions were only detected per FAPI PET (D and E). All highlighted arrows represent FAPI uptake with morphological correlation. p.i. = after injection.

FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3.

(A) Maximum-intensity projections of 68Ga-FAPI-74 PET at 10 min, 1 h, and 3 h after injection. (B–E) Direct comparison of contrast-enhanced CT (B), fusion imaging (C), and FAPI PET (D). (E and F) Superior tumor delineation consecutively improved dose application to tumor volume using volumetrically modulated arc therapy. Positive FAP uptake is marked by arrows (B–F). Green outline = GTV; orange outline = clinical target volume; red outline = planning target volume. p.i. = after injection.

Automated Target Volume Delineation of FAPI GTVs

Contouring primary lung tumors on CT resulted in a median GTV of 67.4 cm3 (range, 25.9–343.4 cm3). For a cutoff at 3-fold background, 18F-FAPI-74 PET traced a median GTV of 69.8 cm3 (P = 0.21; range, 5.0–527.0 cm3; Fig. 4). Considering a mean background SUV of 2 and a mean tumor SUV of 12, the GTVs segmented using a 3-fold background threshold are equal to GTVs segmented at 40%–50% tumor SUVmax. In consensus with the radiation oncologist, these PET-segmented volumes were considered more likely to reflect actual tumor volumes than the corresponding CT image. One patient who was initially considered oligometastatic per the CT image was upstaged and transferred to chemotherapy after additional tumor lesions were found on 18F-FAPI-74 PET imaging (Fig. 2).

FIGURE 4.
FIGURE 4.

GTV automatically segmented per FAPI PET at different SUV thresholds (x = blood-pool–fold) in comparison to CT-based standard of reference.

Radiation Dosimetry

The OLINDA/EXM-based dosimetry estimates are presented in Table 1. Calculations according to the IDAC-Dose calculator are presented in Supplemental Table 1 (supplemental materials are available at http://jnm.snmjournals.org). For 18F-FAPI-74, the normalized effective dose was 1.4 ± 0.2 mSv/100 MBq (range, 1.1–1.7 mSv/100 MBq) with OLINDA/EXM and 1.2 ± 0.1 mSv/100 MBq (range, 1.0–1.4 mSv/100 MBq) with IDAC-Dose. Thus, the examinations, which were conducted with 198–290 MBq of 18F-FAPI-74, translated into effective doses of about 3–4 mSv per examination based on the OLINDA/EXM mean effective dose. For 68Ga-FAPI-74, the effective dose was 1.6 mSv/100 MBq with OLINDA/EXM and 1.4 mSv/100 MBq with IDAC-Dose. Because of a rapid renal tracer clearance and low nonspecific uptake in normal organs, the radiation dosimetry estimate of 18F-FAPI-74 compares favorably with most other 18F-labeled PET tracers in clinical use, whereas 68Ga-FAPI-74 is in the same range as other 68Ga-labeled tracers, including FAPI-2/4/46 (Table 2).

View this table:
TABLE 1

Dose Estimates for 18F- and 68Ga-FAPI-74 According to OLINDA/EXM

View this table:
TABLE 2

Effective Dose of 18F-FAPI-74 and 68Ga-FAPI-74 in Comparison to Other PET Tracers

DISCUSSION

In this work, we evaluated the biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 18F-FAPI-74 PET and demonstrated its possible value for guiding radiotherapy. In addition, labeling of 68Ga-FAPI-74 at ambient temperature was established, and its in vivo performance was evaluated using identical methods.

On the basis of the time-dependent biodistribution of 68Ga- and 18F-FAPI-74 in tumor and normal organs, optimal tumor-to-background ratios at limited noise were achieved by image acquisition 1 h after injection. This is in contrast to previous experience with 68Ga-FAPI-2/4, for which no improvement in tumor uptake between 10 min and 1 h after injection was observed. In normal organs, the time-dependent biodistribution was nearly identical to that of other quinoline-based FAPIs (5).

With a mean normalized effective dose of 1.4 mSv/100 MBq (3.5 mSv for a typical 250-MBq examination), the radiation burden of an 18F-FAPI-74 PET scan is lower than that of PET scans with 18F-FDG, the current standard in oncologic imaging (Table 2). The faint physiologic cerebral and hepatic uptake of 18F-FAPI-74 likely accounts for a lower radiation exposure. The effective dose of 1.6 mSv/100 MBq (3.0 mSv for a typical 185-MBq examination) for a 68Ga-FAPI-74 PET scan is within the range for PET imaging with 68Ga-FAPI-2, 68Ga-FAPI-4, and 68Ga-FAPI-46—a finding that was expected, as all share a similar biodistribution and tracer kinetics.

We used 18F-FAPI-74 PET/CT to plan radiotherapy in patients with lung cancer. Currently, 18F-FDG PET/CT is the standard for staging and target volume delineation in lung cancer. With 18F-FDG PET/CT, it is possible to identify additional distant metastases in about 5%–30% of patients (17), and its high sensitivity for mediastinal lymph nodes, 90%–100%, is considered sufficient to limit the target volume to involved regions. The specificity of 18F-FDG PET/CT is about 80% because of false-positive findings (18–24). Our preliminary experience in 11 patients is not yet sufficient to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 18F-FAPI-74 PET/CT. However, similar to 18F-FDG PET, with 18F-FAPI-74 PET it was possible to identify additional distant metastases compared with a diagnostic CT scan (Fig. 2). In a recent case report, because of the low physiologic cerebral background uptake, 68Ga-FAPI-4 PET/CT made it possible to identify brain metastases from lung cancer (25). Thus, the oncologic application of 18F-FAPI-74 PET/CT appears promising. By applying various cutoffs, the best correlation between CT and 18F-FAPI-74 PET–guided GTV segmentation was found at uptakes that were 3-fold the background level, which equals 40%–50% of SUVmax (Fig. 4). This finding perfectly corresponds to several publications about 18F-FDG PET, which recommend delineating the 3-dimensional metabolic target volume at 41%–50% of SUVmax (26–29).

On the basis of the first DOTA-modified tracer, FAPI-2, the derivatives FAPI-4 and FAPI-46 were developed with a focus on the therapeutic option. The NOTA derivative FAPI-74 was developed as an exclusive diagnostic ligand, accepting slightly shorter tumor retention than the previous theranostic agents. Nevertheless, at early imaging time points, the diagnostic performance should be very similar. Well in line with our expectations, the tumor SUVs of 68Ga- and 18F-FAPI-74 are almost equal to that of FAPI-4 when comparing lung cancer patients (16). In a recent investigation, the accuracy of FAPI-4 PET/CT was directly compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT, and better tumor-to-background contrast and a higher detection rate for primary tumors, lymph nodes, and visceral metastases was found for FAPI PET than for 18F-FDG PET. In this study, histopathologic examination of biopsy or surgical specimens served as the gold standard for the final patient classification (30). In addition to its oncologic application, FAPI PET was also found promising for the evaluation of immune-related and heart diseases (31,32). As a practical (i.e., independent from blood sugar and physical activity), multipurpose tracer, production capacities could soon become a relevant issue. One additional advantage of FAPI-74 over previous ligands is its greater suitability for labeling with 18F-AlF, which would allow large-scale batch production and distribution via satellite concepts. Another characteristic of the NOTA chelator in FAPI-74 is the possibility for 68Ga labeling at ambient temperature. Standardized cold kits would allow chargewise constancy tests as required by regulatory bodies and would increase flexibility for local on-demand production using approved 68Ge/68Ga generators. Thus, in our center, we consider FAPI-74 to be the final evolutionary stage of diagnostic FAP-targeted ligands.

Appropriate approximation of the radiation dosimetry of a novel radiopharmaceutical is mandatory before prospective clinical trials can take place, and this investigation focused on high methodical standards for the dosimetry part, such as by considering individually segmented organ masses for all patients. Yet, only a few investigations directly comparing 68Ga-FAPI-2/4 versus 18F-FDG with histopathologic correlation have been reported (5,30). For the still-limited patient numbers that have been available so far, the accuracy of FAPI PET/CT appears promising. However, additional research evaluating the clinical impact of FAPI PET/CT for particular clinical indications, compared with a reliable standard of truth, and including sufficient patient numbers, is still pivotal.

CONCLUSION

The high contrast and low radiation burden of 68Ga- and 18F-FAPI-74 PET/CT favor multiple clinical applications. Centralized large-scale 18F-AlF–based production of 18F-FAPI-74 or decentralized cold-kit labeling of 68Ga-FAPI-74 allows flexible routine use.

DISCLOSURE

Uwe Haberkorn, Thomas Lindner, Clemens Kratochwil, and Frederik Giesel have a patent application for quinolone-based FAP-targeting agents for imaging and therapy in nuclear medicine. Uwe Haberkorn, Thomas Lindner, Clemens Kratochwil, and Frederik Giesel also have shares of a consultancy group for iTheranostics. Frederik Giesel is a medical advisor for ABX Advanced Biochemical Compound and Telix Pharmaceuticals. Sebastian Adeberg and Jürgen Debus received grants from Accuray International Sàrl, Merck Serono GmbH, and Astra Zeneca GmbH outside the submitted work. Sebastian Adeberg received grants from Novocure outside the submitted work. Jürgen Debus received grants from CRI–The Clinical Research Institute GmbH, View Ray Inc., Accuray Incorporated, RaySearch Laboratories AB, Vision RT Limited, Astellas Pharma GmbH, Solution Akademie GmbH, Ergomed PLC Surrey Research Park, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Quintiles GmbH, Pharmaceutical Research Associates GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH Co., PTW-Freiburg Dr. Pychlau GmbH, and Nanobiotix A.A. outside the submitted work. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

KEY POINTS

  • QUESTION: What are the biodistribution and dosimetry characteristics of a FAPI variant that can be used for both 18F and 68Ga labeling?

  • PERTINENT FINDINGS: The NOTA chelator within the novel ligand FAPI-74 allows labeling with 18F-AlF, as well as the design of a cold kit for labeling with 68Ga. In patients with lung cancer, the new ligands presented performance and radiation dosimetry similar to previous FAPIs.

  • IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: FAPI-74 is our final-stage PET tracer for imaging of fibroblast-activating protein in vivo.

Acknowledgments

We thank Peter L. Choyke from the NIH/NCI molecular imaging program for proofreading and scientific advice. We thank the technical assistants of the PET/CT group at Heidelberg University Hospital for performing the PET scans.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Contributed equally to this work.

  • Published online Jun. 26, 2020.

Immediate Open Access: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY) allows users to share and adapt with attribution, excluding materials credited to previous publications. License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Details: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/site/misc/permission.xhtml.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Brennen WN,
    2. Isaacs JT,
    3. Denmeade SR
    . Rationale behind targeting fibroblast activation protein-expressing carcinoma-associated fibroblasts as a novel chemotherapeutic strategy. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012;11:257–266.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Jansen K,
    2. Heirbaut L,
    3. Cheng JD,
    4. et al
    . Selective inhibitors of fibroblast activation protein (FAP) with a (4-quinolinoyl)-glycyl-2-cyanopyrrolidine scaffold. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2013;4:491–496.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lindner T,
    2. Loktev A,
    3. Altmann A,
    4. et al
    . Development of quinoline-based theranostic ligands for the targeting of fibroblast activation protein. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1415–1422.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Loktev A,
    2. Lindner T,
    3. Mier W,
    4. et al
    . A tumor-imaging method targeting cancer-associated fibroblasts. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1423–1429.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Giesel FL,
    2. Kratochwil C,
    3. Lindner T,
    4. 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. 2019;60:386–392.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kesch C,
    2. Kratochwil C,
    3. Mier W,
    4. et al
    . 68Ga or 18F for prostate cancer imaging? J Nucl Med. 2017;58:687–688.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Sanchez-Crespo A
    . Comparison of gallium-68 and fluorine-18 imaging characteristics in positron emission tomography. Appl Radiat Isot. 2013;76:55–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. McBride WJ,
    2. Sharkey RM,
    3. Karacay H,
    4. et al
    . A novel method of 18F radiolabeling for PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:991–998.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Paulino AC,
    2. Johnstone PA
    . FDG-PET in radiotherapy treatment planning: Pandora’s box? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59:4–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Nestle U,
    2. Schaefer-Schuler A,
    3. Kremp S,
    4. et al
    . Target volume definition for 18F-FDG PET-positive lymph nodes in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:453–462.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Hindorf C,
    2. Glatting G,
    3. Chiesa C,
    4. et al
    . EANM dosimetry committee guidelines for bone marrow and whole-body dosimetry. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1238–1250.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Stabin MG,
    2. Sparks RB,
    3. Crowe E
    . OLINDA/EXM: the second-generation personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1023–1027.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Andersson M,
    2. Johansson L,
    3. Eckerman K,
    4. et al
    . IDAC-Dose 2.1, an internal dosimetry program for diagnostic nuclear medicine based on the ICRP adult reference voxel phantoms. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7:88.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Menzel HG,
    2. Clement C,
    3. DeLuca P
    . ICRP publication 110: realistic reference phantoms—an ICRP/ICRU joint effort. A report of adult reference computational phantoms. Ann ICRP. 2009;39:1–164.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Bolch WE,
    2. Jokisch D,
    3. Zankl M,
    4. et al
    . ICRP publication 133: the ICRP computational framework for internal dose assessment for reference adults—specific absorbed fractions. Ann ICRP. 2016;45:5–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Kratochwil C,
    2. Flechsig P,
    3. Lindner T,
    4. et al
    . 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT: tracer uptake in 28 different kinds of cancer. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:801–805.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Sahiner I,
    2. Vural GU
    . Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography in lung cancer. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2014;4:195–206.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Gould MK,
    2. Maclean CC,
    3. Kuschner WG,
    4. et al
    . Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2001;285:914–924.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.
    1. Behzadi A,
    2. Ung Y,
    3. Lowe V,
    4. et al
    . The role of positron emission tomography in the management of non-small cell lung cancer. Can J Surg. 2009;52:235–242.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.
    1. Fernandes AT,
    2. Shen J,
    3. Finlay J,
    4. et al
    . Elective nodal irradiation (ENI) vs. involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a comparative analysis of toxicities and clinical outcomes. Radiother Oncol. 2010;95:178–184.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    1. Goldstraw P,
    2. Ball D,
    3. Jett JR,
    4. et al
    . Non-small-cell lung cancer. Lancet. 2011;378:1727–1740.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    1. De Ruysscher D,
    2. Nestle U,
    3. Jeraj R,
    4. et al
    . PET scans in radiotherapy planning of lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2012;75:141–145.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    1. Broderick SR,
    2. Patterson GA
    . Performance of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography for mediastinal nodal staging in non-small cell lung carcinoma. Thorac Surg Clin. 2013;23:193–198.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. De Ruysscher D
    . PET-CT in radiotherapy for lung cancer. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;727:53–58.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Giesel FL,
    2. Heussel CP,
    3. Lindner T,
    4. et al
    . FAPI-PET/CT improves staging in a lung cancer patient with cerebral metastasis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1754–1755.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Nestle U,
    2. Kremp S,
    3. Schaefer-Schuler A,
    4. et al
    . Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1342–1348.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.
    1. Erdi YE,
    2. Mawlawi O,
    3. Larson SM,
    4. et al
    . Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding. Cancer. 1997;80:2505–2509.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    1. Boellaard R,
    2. Krak NC,
    3. Hoekstra OS,
    4. et al
    . Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519–1527.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Krak NC,
    2. Boellaard R,
    3. Hoekstra OS,
    4. et al
    . Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:294–301.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Chen H,
    2. Pang Y,
    3. Wu J,
    4. 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 Mol Imaging. 2020;47:1820–1832.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Luo Y,
    2. Pan Q,
    3. Zhang W
    . IgG4-related disease revealed by 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:2625–2626.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Varasteh Z,
    2. Mohanta S,
    3. Robu S,
    4. et al
    . Molecular imaging of fibroblast activity after myocardial infarction using a 68Ga-labeled fibroblast activation protein inhibitor, FAPI-04. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1743–1749.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.
    1. Meyer C,
    2. Dahlbom M,
    3. Lindner T,
    4. et al
    . Radiation dosimetry and biodistribution of 68Ga-FAPI-46 PET imaging in cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:1171–1177.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.
    1. Afshar-Oromieh A,
    2. Hetzheim H,
    3. Kübler W,
    4. et al
    . Radiation dosimetry of 68Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) and preliminary evaluation of optimal imaging timing. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1611–1620.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.
    1. Sandström M,
    2. Velikyan I,
    3. Garske-Román U,
    4. et al
    . Comparative biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 68Ga-DOTATOC and 68Ga-DOTATATE in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1755–1759.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.
    1. Quinn B,
    2. Dauer Z,
    3. Pandit-Taskar N,
    4. Schoder H,
    5. Dauer LT
    . Radiation dosimetry of 18F-FDG PET/CT: incorporating exam-specific parameters in dose estimates. BMC Med Imaging. 2016;16:41.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.
    1. Vesselle H,
    2. Grierson J,
    3. Peterson LM,
    4. Muzi M,
    5. Mankoff DA,
    6. Krohn KA
    . 18F-fluorothymidine radiation dosimetry in human PET imaging studies. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1482–1488.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.
    1. Pauleit D,
    2. Floeth F,
    3. Herzog H,
    4. et al
    . Whole-body distribution and dosimetry of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:519–524.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.
    1. Smolarz K,
    2. Krause BJ,
    3. Graner FP,
    4. et al
    . (S)-4-(3-18F-fluoropropyl)-l-glutamic acid: an 18F-labeled tumor-specific probe for PET/CT imaging–dosimetry. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:861–866.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.
    1. Giesel FL,
    2. Hadaschik B,
    3. Cardinale J,
    4. et al
    . F-18 labelled PSMA-1007: biodistribution, radiation dosimetry and histopathological validation of tumor lesions in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:678–688.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.
    1. O’Keefe GJ,
    2. Saunder TH,
    3. Ng S,
    4. et al
    . Radiation dosimetry of beta-amyloid tracers 11C-PiB and 18F-BAY94-9172. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:309–315.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.
    1. Maddahi J,
    2. Bengel F,
    3. Czernin J,
    4. et al
    . Dosimetry, biodistribution, and safety of flurpiridaz F18 in healthy subjects undergoing rest and exercise or pharmacological stress PET myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;26:2018–2030.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.
    1. DeGrado TR,
    2. Reiman RE,
    3. Price DT,
    4. Wang S,
    5. Coleman RE
    . Pharmacokinetics and radiation dosimetry of 18F-fluorocholine. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:92–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.
    1. Graham MM,
    2. Peterson LM,
    3. Link JM,
    4. et al
    . Fluorine-18-fluoromisonidazole radiation dosimetry in imaging studies. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1631–1636.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  • Received for publication March 13, 2020.
  • Accepted for publication May 27, 2020.
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Similar Articles

Keywords