% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Pabst:306585,
      author       = {K. M. Pabst$^*$ and S. C. Siegmund and A. Holzgreve and H.
                      P. Schmid and T. Bartel$^*$ and K. Herrmann$^*$ and A. T.
                      Küper$^*$ and C. Aydogdu and D. Kersting and C. Kesch and
                      B. A. Hadaschik and M. Unterrainer and C. G. Stief and C. C.
                      Cyran and R. A. Werner and W. P. Fendler$^*$ and J.
                      Casuscelli and L. M. Unterrainer},
      title        = {{P}otential value of [68{G}a]{G}a-{FAPI}-46 {PET} in
                      patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a bi-centric
                      analysis.},
      journal      = {European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging},
      volume       = {nn},
      issn         = {1619-7070},
      address      = {Heidelberg [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Springer-Verl.},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2025-02626},
      pages        = {nn},
      year         = {2025},
      note         = {epub},
      abstract     = {[68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 has shown promise for urothelial cancer
                      (UC) detection. This study evaluates its diagnostic value
                      versus contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and 2-[18F]FDG PET in the
                      largest bi-centric cohort to date.Patients with metastatic
                      UC undergoing [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET at University Hospitals
                      Munich or Essen were retrospectively reviewed. Detection
                      rates were compared with ceCT on a regional basis (primary,
                      lymph nodes, visceral organs, bone). SUVmax and SUVmean of
                      two index lesions were recorded. In a sub-cohort,
                      [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 and 2-[18F]FDG PET were compared on a
                      lesion basis. Clinical follow-up and/or histopathology
                      served as reference.Thirty-four patients underwent
                      [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT and ceCT, including 10 $(29\%)$ with
                      additional 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT. Across 98 lesions (n = 65
                      regions), [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET detected n = 96 $(98\%)$ and
                      ceCT n = 88 $(90\%),$ with mismatch findings in eight lymph
                      nodes (PET positive/ceCT negative) and two visceral organs
                      (ceCT positive/PET negative). In the subgroup comparison, 78
                      lesions were detected in total ([68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46: n = 72
                      $(92\%);$ 2-[18F]FDG: n = 78 $(100\%)).$ Tumour uptake was
                      comparable (SUVmax [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET vs. 2-[18F]FDG: 10.2
                      (IQR, 1.9) vs. 8.0 (IQR, 3.3), p = 0.249), whereas
                      [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 provided higher tumour-to-background ratios
                      (Tumour-to-liver: 12.7 (IQR, 10.3) vs. 3.8 (IQR, 1.9), p =
                      0.046; tumour-to-spleen: 8.4 (IQR, 6.6) vs. 4.6 (IQR, 0.6),
                      p = 0.016).[68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET demonstrated higher regional
                      detection rates than ceCT in UC patients, particularly for
                      lymph node metastases. Compared to 2-[18F]FDG, it provided
                      superior tumour-to-background contrast but detected slightly
                      fewer lesions. [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46 PET may complement
                      established imaging in selected scenarios, although its role
                      in routine UC staging remains investigational.},
      keywords     = {2-[18F]FDG-PET (Other) / CeCT (Other) / Detection efficacy
                      (Other) / Urothelial carcinoma (Other) / [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46
                      PET (Other)},
      cin          = {ED01},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)ED01-20160331},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:41288692},
      doi          = {10.1007/s00259-025-07674-5},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/306585},
}