A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the staging and restaging of gastric adenocarcinoma. | LitMetric

Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivities of 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the primary tumor, and nodal, peritoneal and distant organ metastases of primary and recurrent gastric adenocarcinoma (GAc) with patient and lesion-based comparison.

Materials And Method: Twenty-one patients with histopathologically proven newly diagnosed or recurrent GAc who underwent 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI-04 imaging were included in the study. Both imaging techniques were evaluated visually according to the intensity of organ-based uptake. SUVmax and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) values obtained from primary tumor/relapse and metastatic organs were compared statistically.

Results: 68Ga-FAPI-04 uptake was positive in all 15 newly diagnosed patients, while two patients among them who had mucinous and signet ring cell carcinoma did not exhibit 18F-FDG uptake. The sensitivity and specificity of 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in detecting primary gastric were 100%, while the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG were 86.6 and 100%, respectively. 68Ga-FAPI-04 imaging revealed diffuse stomach uptake in seven patients, while 18F-FDG could only show two of them. The sensitivity and specificity of in-patient-based detection of lymph node metastases were 100 and 95.2%, respectively, while these values were 71.4 and 93.7%, respectively, for 18F-FDG. For peritoneal involvement 68Ga-FAPI-04 had a sensitivity and specificity of 100%, whereas 18F-FDG had a sensitivity of 40% and a specificity of 100%.

Conclusion: 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT is an imaging modality with the potential of yielding more sensitive and specific findings 18F-FDG PET/CT. This modality may help avoid invasive diagnostic procedures that may be frequently required in GAc.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000001489DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

68ga-fapi-04 pet/ct
16
sensitivity specificity
16
18f-fdg pet/ct
12
68ga-fapi-04
8
gastric adenocarcinoma
8
18f-fdg
8
newly diagnosed
8
68ga-fapi-04 imaging
8
18f-fdg sensitivity
8
pet/ct
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!