Gao Haiyan, Chen Jie, Yang Zhichuan, Zhu Ziyang, He Limeng, Zhang Wei, Chen Xiaoyuan, Zhang Jingjing
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610072, China.
Department of Breast Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610072, China.
ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2024 Dec 11;16(49):67523-67531. doi: 10.1021/acsami.4c17912. Epub 2024 Nov 28.
To compare the diagnostic value of [F]AlF-LNC1007, [F]FDG, and [F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in breast cancer. 33 patients with highly suspected or already diagnosed but untreated breast cancer were enrolled in the study and underwent [F]AlF-LNC1007 (30 patients), [F]FDG (22 patients), and [F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04 (8 patients) PET/CT. Quantitative measurements included the SUV and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) for all lesions and background tissues. The Chi-square test was used for intergroup diagnostic efficacy, and the Wilcoxon test was used for intergroup SUV or TBR. Diagnostic efficacy for lymph node metastasis was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Compared to [F]FDG, [F]AlF-LNC1007 had a higher positive predictive value (100% vs 91%, = 0.0004) in lymph node metastases (42 vs 46) and higher sensitivity (100 vs 76%, = 0.0003) in bone metastases (33 vs 25) but lower sensitivity (93 vs 100%, = 0.001) in liver metastases. Apart from liver metastases, [F]AlF-LNC1007 PET/CT had higher SUV in primary tumor and other metastases, with no statistical difference in TBR. Compared to [F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT, [F]AlF-LNC1007 had less false-positive and a higher positive predictive value in bone metastases (99 vs 95%, = 0.0003) but had lower SUV( < 0.01) in all primary and metastases lesions. The TBR difference between [F]AlF-LNC1007 and [F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04 was statistically significant only in bone metastases (5.97 vs 5.02, = 0.001). The comparison of lymph node detection efficacy between [F]AlF-LNC1007 and [F]FDG PET/CT showed significant differences in SUV cutoff values for diagnosing lymph node metastases (2.62 vs 3.90), sensitivity (95.2% vs 66.67), and specificity (100% vs 85.00) (all < 0.001). [F]AlF-LNC1007 demonstrated superior efficacy compared to [F]FDG and [F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04 and higher uptake than [F]FDG in primary tumor, lymph node and bone metastases, and higher TBR than [F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04, especially in bone metastases. [F]AlF-LNC1007 also showed high specificity in differentiating inflammatory and metastatic lymph nodes.
比较[F]AlF-LNC1007、[F]FDG和[F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT在乳腺癌中的诊断价值。33例高度怀疑或已确诊但未治疗的乳腺癌患者纳入本研究，分别接受了[F]AlF-LNC1007（30例）、[F]FDG（22例）和[F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04（8例）PET/CT检查。定量测量包括所有病灶和背景组织的SUV及肿瘤与本底比值（TBR）。采用卡方检验进行组间诊断效能分析，采用Wilcoxon检验进行组间SUV或TBR分析。使用受试者工作特征（ROC）分析评估淋巴结转移的诊断效能。与[F]FDG相比，[F]AlF-LNC1007在淋巴结转移方面具有更高的阳性预测值（100%对91%，P = 0.0004）（42对46），在骨转移方面具有更高的敏感性（100%对76%，P = 0.0003）（33对25），但在肝转移方面敏感性较低（93%对100%，P = 0.001）。除肝转移外，[F]AlF-LNC1007 PET/CT在原发肿瘤和其他转移灶中的SUV较高，TBR无统计学差异。与[F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT相比，[F]AlF-LNC1007在骨转移方面假阳性较少且阳性预测值更高（99%对95%，P = 0.0003），但在所有原发灶和转移灶中的SUV较低（P < 0.01）。[F]AlF-LNC1007与[F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04之间的TBR差异仅在骨转移中具有统计学意义（5.97对5.02，P = 0.001）。[F]AlF-LNC1007与[F]FDG PET/CT在淋巴结检测效能比较中，诊断淋巴结转移的SUV临界值（2.62对3.90）、敏感性（95.2%对66.67%）和特异性（100%对85.00%）均存在显著差异（均P < 0.001）。与[F]FDG和[F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04相比，[F]AlF-LNC1007显示出更高的效能，在原发肿瘤、淋巴结和骨转移中的摄取高于[F]FDG，TBR高于[F]AlF-NOTA-FAPI-04，尤其是在骨转移中。[F]AlF-LNC1007在鉴别炎性和转移性淋巴结方面也显示出高特异性。
