The comparative diagnostic and therapeutic application value of FAPI PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncology

Molecular imaging has become central to oncologic diagnosis and therapy assessment. ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT) is widely implemented, yet performance is attenuated in tumors with low glycolytic activity or in sites with high physiological uptake. Small-molecule fibroblast activation protein inhibitors (FAPI) enable high-contrast imaging of cancer-associated fibroblasts within the tumor stroma, offering rapid clearance and favorable biodistribution. This review synthesizes clinical and preclinical evidence comparing FAPI PET/CT with¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT across solid tumors. Head-to-head analyses indicate superior or complementary lesion conspicuity for FAPI in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and colorectal cancer (CRC) —especially peritoneal and nodal disease—and context-dependent comparability in breast and head-and-neck cancers. Across studies, FAPI demonstrates higher tumor-to-background ratios and improved detection of small or low-FDG-avid lesions, with variable downstream effects on staging and management. We delineate disease-specific scenarios in which multi-tracer strategies may optimize diagnostic yield and propose a framework for integrating FAPI into precision imaging pathways. Priority areas include prospective, adequately powered trials; harmonized acquisition and quantification protocols; and evaluations of cost-effectiveness and theranostic implications.

Introduction

The multimodal integration of positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) allows for simultaneous functional and molecular as well as anatomical evaluation in a single examination, facilitating the transition from research to routine clinical oncology practice (1). By visualizing metabolic activity, receptor expression, and microenvironmental changes, PET/CT supports staging and restaging, assessment of treatment response, prognostication, and image-guided therapeutic planning (2). Traditional morphology-based imaging may fail to detect small lesions, overlook inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity, and perform suboptimally in assessing early biological response, whereas PET/CT addresses these limitations through molecular readouts (3). ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸F-FDG) remains the cornerstone tracer, supported by globally standardized clinical frameworks (4). Its mechanism—glucose transporter (GLUT)-mediated uptake and hexokinase-mediated trapping—enables sensitive detection in glycolytically active tumors (5, 6). Nonetheless, non-specific uptake in inflammation or infection, high physiological background activity, and tumors with low-grade or mucinous histology can lead to false-positive and false-negative results, thereby reducing the accuracy of staging and treatment response assessment, particularly in head and neck, gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and gynecologic malignancies (7, 8). In recent years, molecular imaging strategies targeting the tumor microenvironment (TME) have advanced rapidly. The fibroblast activation protein (FAP), abundantly expressed on cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) across numerous solid tumors, plays a pivotal role in key biological processes such as extracellular matrix remodeling, angiogenesis, epithelial–mesenchymal transition, and immune suppression. Through these functions, FAP has emerged as a compelling target for both diagnostic imaging and therapeutic intervention within the TME (9). Small-molecule fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) probes demonstrate rapid accumulation within tumor tissues and efficient clearance from non-target organs, yielding high tumor-to-background ratios (TBR) alongside favorable in vivo pharmacokinetic and dosimetric characteristics. These attributes present a promising approach to overcoming the major limitations associated with ¹⁸F-FDG imaging (10, 11). The clinical translation of FAPI PET/CT has progressed rapidly, with a range of ⁶⁸Ga-labeled and next-generation ¹⁸F-labeled FAPI derivatives (e.g., FAPI-04, FAPI-46, FAP-2286, FAPI-RGD) demonstrating superior lesion detection rates and improved tumor-to-background ratios (TBRs) compared to ¹⁸F-FDG across multiple cancer cohorts. These tracers also exhibit complementary diagnostic value in specific tumor types or clinical contexts (12). Compared with FDG, which depends on glucose metabolism and GLUT1-mediated transport, FAPI PET/CT provides superior specificity and enhanced contrast in detecting tumor microenvironment alterations, including extracellular matrix remodeling, angiogenesis, and immunosuppressive conditions (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Schematic comparison of imaging mechanisms between¹⁸F-FDG and FAPI in tumor detection.This picture created by MedPeer (https://www.medpeer.cn/).

Building on this background, this review aims to systematically compare FAPI PET/CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in terms of biological targets, imaging kinetics and dosimetry, lesion detection rates, SUV/TBR metrics, staging and restaging accuracy, and their impact on clinical decision-making. Particular emphasis is placed on evaluating the evidence across distinct tumor types—including pancreatic cancer, gastric cancer, biliary tract tumors, mucinous and low-grade malignancies, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, breast cancer, and CRC—as well as in specific clinical contexts such as postoperative or postradiotherapy settings, coexisting inflammation/fibrosis, and resectability assessment. This analysis outlines the strengths and potential limitations of each imaging modality. Through comprehensive evaluation, we seek to define the clinical scenarios in which FAPI or ¹⁸F-FDG should be preferentially or concurrently utilized to establish more personalized and cost-effective molecular imaging strategies.

Understanding the science behind FAPI PET/CT and the evolution of its tracers

FAP, a tumor-microenvironment antigen, exhibits high enrichment on CAFs while maintaining minimal expression in normal tissues. The development of quinoline-based small-molecule FAP inhibitors (FAPIs), such as FAPI-02 and FAPI-04 in 2018, facilitated ⁶⁸Ga/¹⁸F radiolabeling and enabled rapid, high-contrast PET/CT imaging with favorable pharmacokinetic and dosimetric profiles (13). Initial investigations demonstrated high uptake and superior lesion-to-background contrast across multiple solid tumors, with performance exceeding that of ¹⁸F-FDG in specific clinical scenarios—such as improved tumor-to-background ratio and TNM upstaging in CRC, alongside heightened sensitivity and TBR in ovarian peritoneal metastases (14). For clinical deployment ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI has been rapidly adopted due to the availability of ⁶⁸Ge/ ⁶⁸Ga generators, straightforward radiolabeling synthesis, low physiological background activity, and robust tumor uptake across diverse malignancies (15). While ¹⁸F-labeled tracers, such as FAPI-74, broaden accessibility through centralized production, they have also demonstrated a significant impact on clinical management in specific patient cohorts (16). These findings support disease-specific head-to-head comparisons that emphasize detection performance, SUV/TBR, and the impact on clinical decisions.

The application of FAPI-PET/CT in malignant tumors

Respiratory system neoplasms

Lung cancer

Lung cancer remains the foremost cause of cancer-related mortality globally. Robust evidence indicates that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in high-risk populations significantly reduces lung cancer–specific mortality (17). FAPI PET/CT visualizes fibroblast activation protein (FAP)—expressed on CAFs—and augments conventional imaging by mapping stromal activation in the tumor microenvironment. Owing to its high image contrast and typically optimal lesion delineation at approximately one hour post-injection, FAPI PET/CT offers a clinically practical platform for precise tumor staging and definition of thoracic target volumes (18). At the lesion level, prospective studies indicate that ¹⁸F-FAPI exhibits superior sensitivity (99% vs. 87%), specificity (93% vs. 79%), accuracy (97% vs. 85%), and negative predictive value (97% vs. 70%) compared to ¹⁸F-FDG across primary tumors, nodal involvement, and distant metastases, while maintaining a comparable positive predictive value—underscoring its enhanced utility for ruling out disease during whole-body staging (19). Meta-analyses similarly demonstrate superior aggregated sensitivity for metastatic lesions (0.99 vs. 0.77), whereas sensitivity for primary tumors is comparable between FAPI and FDG (0.98 vs. 0.99). Semi-quantitatively, the target-to-background ratio (TBR) is lower for FAPI than FDG in primary lung tumors (25.3 ± 14.0 vs. 32.1 ± 21.1) but higher in metastatic lymph nodes and bone metastases (7.5 ± 6.6 vs. 5.9 ± 8.6; 8.6 ± 5.4 vs. 4.3 ± 2.3), suggesting enhanced contrast advantages particularly in osseous disease (20). Pathologic correlation analyses further confirmed significantly higher ¹⁸F-FAPI uptake in mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes (SUV~max~ 10.87 ± 7.29 vs. 6.08 ± 5.37), yielding superior diagnostic performance compared to FDG, with respective sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV values of 84%, 92%, 90%, 84%, and 92% versus 71%, 67%, 69%, 52%, and 83%. Importantly, for subcentimeter nodes (<10 mm), ¹⁸F-FAPI demonstrated enhanced specificity, accuracy, and PPV (96%, 93%, and 77% vs. 72%, 73%, and 33%), underscoring its enhanced reliability in identifying small nodal metastases (20). In a prospective perioperative cohort, an ¹⁸F-FAPI SUV_max threshold of 6.2 effectively discriminated benign from metastatic lymph nodes (NPV 93.8%; PPV 87.5% in the absence of calcification or high-density features); integration of dual-tracer imaging improved nodal staging accuracy to 83% and led to changes in clinical management for 29 patients (21). Analysis of real-world NSCLC cohorts reveals comparable primary tumor SUV_max/TBR, yet demonstrates enhanced detection of nodal and osseous metastases with FAPI, leading to cancer stage reclassification in approximately 11% of patients (22). A subsequent single-center prospective study similarly identified a higher prevalence of suspicious nodal, osseous, and pleural lesions using FAPI compared to FDG (23). To systematically assess the performance differences between FAPI and ¹⁸F-FDG in oncological imaging, we have synthesized key parameters from current representative studies, enabling a comprehensive comparison of their diagnostic accuracy, tumor targeting efficiency, and clinical applicability (Table 1). Compared with ¹⁸F-FDG, FAPI-PET/CT demonstrates superior sensitivity, specificity, and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) in N/M staging of lung cancer, particularly for mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes as well as bone, brain, and pleural metastases, while maintaining a comparable overall detection rate for primary lesions. Emerging evidence also suggests that FAPI-PET/CT may reflect the immune microenvironment, such as PD-L1 expression, thereby offering the potential to improve the accuracy of staging and inform more precise treatment decision-making.

Table 1

Table 1. Summary of key parameter comparisons (FAPI vs FDG, Lung Cancer).

Tumors of the female reproductive system

Ovarian cancer

Globally, ovarian cancer (OC) is the seventh most commonly diagnosed malignancy in women and ranks as the eighth primary cause of female cancer-related deaths (27). In epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), conventional imaging and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT often fail to detect small metastatic lymph nodes and peritoneal deposits, highlighting the necessity for tracers with a high tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) to improve staging accuracy and surgical strategy. In a prospective comparative trial, [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04 and ¹⁸F-FDG demonstrated similar diagnostic performance at the patient level for identifying primary tumors (sensitivity: 93.9% vs 90.9%; specificity: 80.0% vs 80.0%; accuracy: 92.1% vs 89.5%); however, FAPI imaging achieved a markedly higher tumor-to-liver ratio (TLR; median: 15.95 vs 4.94; P < 0.001), indicative of superior lesion contrast due to reduced background uptake (28). Notably, physiological ovarian FDG uptake fluctuates according to the menstrual cycle, which can compromise diagnostic specificity; in contrast, FAPI uptake exhibits no such cyclical variation (29). In pathology-correlated studies of peritoneal seeding, FAPI demonstrates consistently superior patient-level sensitivity compared to FDG (97.5% vs. 75.9% and 96.8% vs. 83.0%; both P < 0.001), in addition to significantly improved semi-quantitative parameters (SUV_max: 17.31 vs. 13.68, P = 0.026; TLR: 23.81 vs. 5.39, P < 0.001; PCI: 15 vs. 11, P < 0.001) (28). In patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent disease, FAPI imaging demonstrates a substantial improvement in both sensitivity and accuracy (96.30% vs 49.07% and 97.40% vs 63.87%, respectively), an effect primarily driven by enhanced tumor-to-background ratio rather than by differences in absolute SUV_max (30). Lesion-distribution analyses further indicate enhanced detection of peritoneal and pleural metastases (e.g., 9/9 vs. 5/9) and occasional upstaging, underscoring the additional value of this approach for systemic staging (31). For the assessment of diaphragmatic and upper abdominal dissemination, FAPI-PET/MR imaging benefits from a low hepatic background, yields peritoneal carcinomatosis index estimates that align more closely with surgical observations, and enhances the prediction of incomplete cytoreduction (sensitivity: 91.67%; specificity: 64.29%) (32). Consistent systematic evidence across gynecologic malignancies reveals a superior pooled sensitivity for detecting peritoneal cancer with FAPI (approximately 0.98) compared to FDG (0.71), accompanied by reduced background signal and an increased tumor-to-background ratio (33). Collectively ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI PET/CT provides enhanced contrast and superior sensitivity for detecting peritoneal implants and specific nodal metastases in ovarian cancer (OC), whereas FDG retains utility for metabolic characterization; a dual-tracer approach may thus more comprehensively capture complementary molecular–mesenchymal phenotypes and refine clinical decision-making (28, 32). Clinically, FAPI-guided staging resulted in upstaging of disease in a substantial proportion of patients (14.3% in newly diagnosed and 33.3% in recurrent EOC), which consequently altered clinical management in 10.7% and 19.0% of cases, respectively. These findings support the preferential application of FAPI imaging for evaluating suspected peritoneal seeding, assessing resectability, and monitoring recurrence, although definitive recommendations await larger prospective trials investigating long-term patient outcomes (28). To systematically present the comparative performance of FAPI and ¹⁸F-FDG across key parameters in ovarian cancer, this article summarizes and synthesizes the available research data (Table 2). Current head-to-head and meta-analytic evidence indicates that ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI PET/CT demonstrates a higher detection rate and significantly improved tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) compared to ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of ovarian cancer, particularly for peritoneal implants and selected lymph node metastases. In various clinical scenarios, the SUV_max values obtained with FAPI are at least comparable to, and in some cases higher than, those of FDG. This contributes to more accurate staging and enhanced clinical decision-making potential.

Table 2

Table 2. Summary of key parameter comparisons (FAPI vs FDG, Ovarian Cancer).

Tumors of the mammary system

Breast cancer

Despite notable advances in cancer research, breast cancer remains a significant global health challenge and continues to be a central focus of biomedical investigation (34). Fibroblast activation protein (FAP), which is highly expressed in CAFs of the breast tumor stroma, permits FAPI-based tracers to achieve elevated tumor uptake alongside a low physiological background. This results in an enhanced tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) and improved lesion conspicuity, especially for sub-centimeter lesions and areas with minimal inflammatory activity (35). In a prospective head-to-head comparison involving 34 newly diagnosed patients, FAPI exhibited significantly higher SUV_max and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) in primary lesions compared to FDG (SUV_max: 11.06 ± 5.48 vs. 8.33 ± 6.07; TBR: 15.32 ± 10.33 vs. 8.25 ± 5.51; both statistically significant). Moreover, FAPI SUV_max showed a positive correlation with pathological grade and clinical stage, while lesion-level detection rates were 100% (50/50) for FAPI versus 96% (48/50) for FDG (36). In a separate comparative analysis employing direct TBR quantification, primary lesions exhibited a significantly higher median TBR with FAPI than with FDG (14.8 versus 6.3, p = 0.002) (35). For the assessment of lymph node metastasis, FAPI demonstrated superior specificity and diagnostic accuracy compared to FDG, achieving a higher overall N-staging accuracy (91.2% vs 73.5%) and enhanced detection of axillary N0 status (85.7% vs 42.9%) (36). In low-FDG-avid disease subgroups, FAPI imaging can detect additional nodal involvement in the axillary, supraclavicular, and mediastinal regions, including subcentimeter nodes that are solely FAPI-positive, with potential implications for disease upstaging (37). The comparatively low physiological uptake of FAPI in normal bone and brain tissue results in higher target-to-background ratios and superior visualization of osseous and cerebral metastases compared to FDG (35). In cases of liver metastases, while SUV_max values may be comparable, FAPI significantly enhances the tumor-to-background ratio and enables the detection of lesions not visible on FDG-PET, owing to its minimal physiological uptake in normal liver tissue (35, 38). Paired multi-cohort analyses indicate that FAPI and FDG exhibit comparable patient-level diagnostic accuracy in breast cancer, albeit with limitations due to small sample sizes, while regional sensitivity and accuracy are largely similar. Nevertheless, a modestly lower negative predictive value (NPV) observed with FAPI may indicate underlying heterogeneity among biological subtypes and lesion stages (39). Notably, FAPI imaging can yield false-positive results in the context of fibrotic or granulomatous lesions, highlighting the necessity for comprehensive clinical correlation and multimodal imaging integration (40). Collectively, FAPI imaging represents a valuable adjunct to FDG for initial breast cancer staging, particularly in confirming axillary N0 status, refining evaluation in cases with low FDG avidity, and improving the detection of brain, bone, and hepatic metastases (35–37). In summary, FAPI PET/CT demonstrates higher SUV_max and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) compared to ¹⁸F-FDG in both primary breast cancer lesions and multi-organ metastases, particularly in axillary N0 staging, low FDG-avid subtypes, and metastases involving the liver, bone, and brain. Furthermore, FAPI PET/CT delivers at least non-inferior and potentially superior diagnostic performance.

Solid tumors of the digestive system

Liver cancer

Primary liver cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Histologically, liver cancer is primarily categorized into two major subtypes: hepatocellular carcinoma, which accounts for approximately 75% of all cases, and ICC, representing about 15% of all liver cancers (41). While ¹⁸F-FDG PET, which reflects glucose metabolism, typically demonstrates low or heterogeneous uptake in well-to-moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and certain ICC subtypes, its diagnostic utility is constrained by high physiological liver activity, resulting in a suboptimal tumor-to-background ratio (TBR). Conversely, FAPI imaging targets CAFs in the tumor microenvironment, leading to low background activity in normal liver parenchyma and elevated uptake in fibrosis-rich or stroma-dense tumors, thereby enhancing lesion detectability. However, the potential for false-positive findings due to benign inflammatory processes necessitates correlative interpretation with anatomical imaging and clinical context (42). In a prospective observational cohort (n=44), ¹⁸F-FAPI-04 exhibited superior sensitivity relative to ¹⁸F-FDG in detecting malignant liver lesions (84.6% [33/39] vs 76.9% [30/39]), albeit with reduced specificity (60% [3/5] vs 100% [5/5]), accompanied by significantly elevated SUV_max and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) values (43). A head-to-head comparative study, stratified by histology, revealed a superior overall sensitivity for FAPI (96% [22/23]) compared with FDG (65% [15/23]), with specific improvements observed in both hepatocellular carcinoma (94% vs 69%) and ICC (100% vs 57%) (42). At the lesion level, FAPI demonstrated superior performance compared to FDG (85.7% vs. 57.1%), especially in detecting small lesions ≤2 cm (68.8% vs. 18.8%) and moderately to well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma (83.3% vs. 33.3%) (44). ¹⁸F-FAPI demonstrates a greater influence on the initial staging and therapeutic decision-making for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as it enables the detection of more primary lesions and lymph node or peritoneal metastases, leading to T-stage upstaging. However, ¹⁸F-FDG retains certain advantages in assessing large vessel invasion and selected bone metastases (45). FAPI demonstrates significantly higher sensitivity and detection rates compared to FDG, particularly in early-stage or small-volume lesions and high-to-moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its specificity is moderately lower than that of FDG due to inflammatory false-positive findings, necessitating the incorporation of multi-modal imaging and clinical evidence for accurate interpretation (43). The median SUV_max/TBR was also significantly higher with FAPI (13.61/5.55) than with FDG (4.24/1.17), a finding that extended to intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (TBR 6.95 vs. 1.49). Notably, FAPI-derived metrics increased progressively with worsening hepatocellular carcinoma differentiation, whereas FDG uptake failed to show clear stratification, underscoring the biological complementarity of the two imaging approaches (42). In mixed hepatocellular–cholangiocarcinoma, Ki-67 expression exhibited a positive correlation with FAPI-SUV_max (R = 0.603), and specific immunophenotypes were linked to elevated FAPI uptake, whereas no significant associations were observed for FDG-derived metrics. Mild hepatic fibrosis or steatosis may lead to a modest increase in FAPI background activity, thereby attenuating improvements in tumor-to-background ratio (TBR). In addition, the presence of inflammatory pseudotumors or dysplastic nodules can compromise diagnostic specificity, as illustrated by a reduction from 100% to 60% in certain cases (43). For whole-body staging, FAPI imaging identified a greater number of peritoneal and osseous lesions (e.g., peritoneum: 12 vs 4; bone: 43 vs 33), yet demonstrated no distinct superiority in the detection of pulmonary metastases, indicating complementary patterns of metastatic involvement (42). Collectively, FAPI demonstrates superior sensitivity, SUV_max, and tumor-to-background ratio in liver tumors, aligning with existing comparative data (46). Prospective data substantiate the utility of this approach for small-volume and well-to-moderately differentiated HCC, while FDG-PET may more effectively delineate specific invasive and metastatic characteristics; the integration of dual-tracer imaging strategies could enhance initial staging accuracy and refine management planning (44, 45). Therefore, FAPI-PET/CT should be prioritized in the initial staging, recurrence evaluation, and systemic metastasis characterization of HCC and ICCC, particularly in scenarios where MRI/CT findings are suspicious but FDG shows negative or low uptake, or when a high tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) is required for the assessment of small lesions or those dominated by interstitial reactions. For suspected inflammatory lesions or cases with significant liver fibrosis, complementary use of MRI, multiparametric CT, and clinical-pathological parameters is recommended to enhance diagnostic specificity.

Pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer remains among the most lethal malignancies worldwide. According to the GLOBOCAN 2012 estimates, it accounts for more than 331,000 annual deaths, ranking as the seventh leading cause of cancer-related mortality in both men and women (47). In pancreatic cancer, predominantly pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), FAPI-PET/CT, which targets the CAF-mediated stromal response, demonstrates consistently superior overall diagnostic performance compared to ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT, which relies on glucose metabolism. Accumulating evidence from previous systematic reviews indicates that FAPI offers improved detection rates and enhanced quantitative contrast,as reflected by higher SUV and TBR values, across primary tumors, lymph node metastases, distant metastatic lesions, and peritoneal implants (48, 49). A meta-analysis focusing specifically on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), which included 7 studies and 322 patients, demonstrated a significantly higher pooled sensitivity for FAPI compared to FDG (0.99 [0.97–1.00] versus 0.84 [0.70–0.92]), while specificity remained comparable (0.84 [0.63–0.94] versus 0.85 [0.75–0.91]). The analysis also revealed a larger area under the curve (AUC) for FAPI (0.99 [0.98–1.00] versus 0.91 [0.88–0.93]). This superiority was consistent at both the patient and lesion levels, especially for nodal and distant metastases, and FAPI exhibited a higher SUV_max in primary lesions, with a mean difference of +6.47 (49). Consistent findings across multiple cohorts further validate the superior tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) achieved with FAPI, exemplified by enhanced contrast in liver metastases (e.g., TBR 5.7 ± 3.2 versus 3.2 ± 1.3), underscoring its utility in improving lesion detectability in low-contrast imaging scenarios (49, 50). Prospective head-to-head comparative studies (including those utilizing ¹⁸F-AIF-FAPI-74) reveal significantly lower background uptake (median SUVmean 0.8 versus 2.6) and superior tumor-to-background ratios, thereby enhancing the detection of small-volume nodal metastases and peritoneal implants and improving the certainty of staging evaluations (51). The superior imaging capabilities yield clinically significant impacts on staging and management: single-institution studies report nodal upstaging rates as high as 51.6% and alterations in treatment plans in up to 38.7% of cases, whereas pooled analyses reveal overall staging reclassification and management modification rates of 25% and 11.7%, respectively (49). In a prospective comparative study of ¹⁸F-FAPI-04 and FDG, TNM staging was upstaged in 14 out of 62 patients, highlighting the enhanced utility of FAPI for perioperative staging and the evaluation of resectability (51). Beyond staging, baseline imaging phenotypes, including the “distal pancreatitis” sign, can signal ductal obstruction, greater metastatic burden, and poorer prognosis; quantitatively, in a cohort of 51 patients, a FAPI-SUV_max threshold of 14.9 independently stratified overall survival (hazard ratio 8.877), suggesting that stroma-targeted tracer uptake intensity may reflect aggressive tumor biology and facilitate risk stratification (50). To systematically present the comparative performance of FAPI and ¹⁸F-FDG across key parameters in pancreatic cancer, this article summarizes and synthesizes the available research data (Table 3). Overall, FAPI-PET/CT demonstrates consistent advantages over FDG in sensitivity and image contrast for both primary and metastatic lesions in pancreatic cancer, while exhibiting comparable specificity. These characteristics suggest its potential to transform perioperative staging and recurrence monitoring workflows in pancreatic cancer management. Further validation in multicenter prospective trials is warranted to explore complementary strategies with FDG, such as delayed imaging and multi-tracer combinations, to optimize real-world clinical decision-making. Specifically, in pancreatic cancer, FAPI-PET/CT outperforms ¹⁸F-FDG in terms of sensitivity and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) for detecting primary tumors, lymph node involvement, and distant metastases, without compromising specificity, thereby improving the accuracy of TNM staging and the formulation of treatment strategies.

Table 3

Table 3. Summary of key parameter comparisons (FAPI vs FDG, Pancreatic Cancer).

Gastric cancer

Less than a century ago, gastric cancer was the most common malignancy in the United States and globally. Despite a significant decline in its global incidence over the past century, it remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide (52). In contrast to ¹⁸F-FDG, FAPI enables superior tumor-to-background contrast in gastric cancer by specifically targeting CAFs, while exhibiting minimal physiologic uptake in the gastrointestinal tract, thereby allowing more precise disease staging and therapy-response evaluation (53–55). In prospective, head-to-head analyses of newly diagnosed cohorts, FAPI demonstrated a primary-tumor detection rate of 100%, compared with 50.0% for FDG; a separate prospective PET/MR study similarly revealed superior performance for FAPI (86.7% vs 60.0%) (56, 57). Quantitatively, FAPI demonstrates significantly higher radiotracer uptake and superior contrast, as evidenced by elevated median SUVmax (10.3 vs. 8.1) and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR; 11.6 vs. 5.8). These findings are corroborated by a separate prospective cohort, which reported a further increased TBR (11.9 vs. 3.2). Additionally, FAPI exhibits consistently higher tumor-to-liver ratios (TLR) across various anatomical regions (53, 56, 58). In the evaluation of lymph node metastasis, FAPI demonstrates enhanced sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic performance. Nodule-based analysis revealed that the sensitivity of FDG is 54%, whereas FAPI achieves a significantly higher sensitivity of 79%. A retrospective cohort analysis further showed that FAPI exhibits an accuracy of 92.2%, sensitivity of 78.6%, and specificity of 96.0% for lymph node staging, all of which are either superior to or non-inferior to FDG. Notably, when validated against pathological/surgical findings, FAPI shows significantly higher specificity and positive predictive value compared to FDG (100.0% vs. 97.7%; 100.0% vs. 57.1%, respectively) (53, 58, 59). For peritoneal dissemination, intra-patient comparative analyses reveal a marked superiority of FAPI (detection rate 100% vs. 0%; mean SUVmax 10.0 vs. 2.4). Furthermore, a study published in EJNMMI documented a greater number of detected lesions and a higher tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) with FAPI (159 vs. 47 lesions; TBR 8.1 vs. 3.2). These findings are corroborated by systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which consistently report enhanced sensitivity and improved SUVmax and TBR values for the detection of peritoneal disease (55, 56, 58). FAPI demonstrates particular utility in mucinous adenocarcinoma and signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC), tumor types that are frequently “metabolically cold” on FDG–PET imaging; comparative studies and case evidence in SRCC indicate that FAPI can detect lesions, including peritoneal deposits, that are not visualized by FDG (56, 60, 61). Nevertheless, FDG avidity may be diminished in early-stage malignancies and micro-foci characterized by limited volume or shallow infiltration, scenarios in which FDG-PET may retain diagnostic value and dual-tracer approaches could serve a complementary role (57, 60). For the early assessment of treatment response, a reduction of ≥52% in both %SUVmax and %TBR on FAPI imaging after a single cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy serves as a predictor of major pathological response (AUC 0.856–0.864; accuracy ~89.3%), with performance superior to that of FDG-derived parameters (54). Overall, FAPI-PET/CT demonstrates superior performance to FDG in detecting primary tumors, assessing peritoneal dissemination, and staging lymph node involvement, positioning it for broader application in radiotherapy target delineation and individualized therapeutic monitoring (53, 56, 58). In summary, FAPI-PET/CT demonstrates consistently superior performance compared to ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT in the detection of primary gastric cancer lesions, particularly in subtypes with low glucose metabolism and peritoneal metastases, as evidenced by improved imaging contrast—most notably tumor-to-background ratio (TBR). FAPI is capable of clearly visualizing signet ring cell carcinomas that exhibit negative or low FDG uptake, thereby influencing disease staging. The implementation of high-quality, standardized prospective studies, along with broader clinical adoption of FAPI, is anticipated to further improve its clinical accessibility and elevate its level of evidence.

Colorectal cancer

CRC now ranks as the fourth most common cause of cancer-related deaths globally, accounting for approximately 900,000 fatalities each year, the expansion of screening programs is intended to enhance early detection and lower both disease incidence and mortality (62, 63). By specifically targeting fibroblast activation protein (FAP) within the tumor stroma, FAPI demonstrates pronounced tumor uptake while exhibiting minimal physiological background signal in the intestinal lumen and peritoneal cavity, thereby offering a high-contrast platform for CRC staging and metastasis assessment (64). For the detection of primary lesions, head-to-head comparisons and meta-analyses reveal that FAPI and FDG exhibit comparable diagnostic performance (relative risk ≈ 0.99) (64, 65). Notwithstanding comparable SUVmax values (14.3 ± 8.6 vs. 15.4 ± 9.8, P = 0.604), FAPI demonstrates superior visualization of mucinous adenocarcinoma and signet ring cell carcinoma, achieving a significantly higher tumor-to-background ratio (64). Nodal evaluation demonstrates superior performance for FAPI, with surgically validated studies reporting sensitivities and specificities for lymph node detection as high as 90% and 100%, respectively, compared to 80% and 81.8% for FDG (66). The conclusion was further substantiated by lesion-level analyses, which indicated a significant advantage for FAPI (relative risk = 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.47–0.84) (65). Analysis of patient-level gastrointestinal cohorts further revealed that FAPI imaging achieved superior accuracy and sensitivity in determining nodal status compared to conventional methods (92.2% vs. 70.3% and 78.6% vs. 71.4%, respectively) (53). This finding is consistent with the heightened sensitivity observed in the digestive-tract subgroup (79% vs. 54%) (61). For distant metastases, the low hepatic background activity of FAPI may enhance the detection of small liver metastases; paired data in CRC revealed a greater number of liver lesions with FAPI compared to FDG (13 versus 7) (65). The paired CRC cohort demonstrated that FAPI identified more liver metastases (13 vs. 7) compared to FDG, indicating a potential clinical advantage in lesion detection. FAPI exhibited its most pronounced superiority in the detection of peritoneal metastases. The CRC study showed that FAPI not only detected a greater number of peritoneal lesions (107 vs. 45), but also yielded higher peritoneal cancer index (PCI) scores (median: 11 vs. 4). Findings from the recurrent CRC study further confirmed that FAPI outperformed FDG in both the detection of peritoneal metastases and PCI assessment, with a higher area under the ROC curve observed in the same patient cohort (67). Quantitative evaluation of peritoneal tumor burden using FDG-PET/CT is not recommended (68). Overall, FAPI enhances the assessment of metastatic burden and staging precision, can lead to TNM upstaging, and may influence therapeutic decision-making (61, 69). Using a mixed cohort of gastric and CRC as an example, FAPI demonstrates superior performance in detecting distant metastases, which enhances the accuracy of overall staging determination and consequently improves staging precision and clinical stratification (53). Quantitatively, FAPI generally yields superior tumor-to-background and tumor-to-liver ratios, whereas the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) is frequently similar across different tracers (53, 64, 66) Registry data across various tumor types further indicate a superior overall diagnostic accuracy for CRC (39). From a biological perspective, these benefits are likely attributable to a high affinity for the CAF-rich tumor stroma, supporting the future incorporation of theranostic approaches in CRC (70). To systematically present the comparative performance of FAPI and ¹⁸F-FDG across key parameters in CRC, this article summarizes and synthesizes the available research data (Table 4). In conclusion, in CRC, FAPI-PET/CT demonstrates superior tumor-to-background ratios—particularly in the peritoneum and liver parenchyma with low background activity—and exhibits enhanced sensitivity for detecting peritoneal dissemination and lymph node metastases. It also shows greater diagnostic performance in mucinous and signet ring cell subtypes and is capable of identifying small-volume liver metastases. These advantages increase the likelihood of TNM stage upstaging and facilitate treatment strategy modifications. FAPI-PET/CT should be considered as a preferred imaging modality in clinical scenarios involving suspected peritoneal metastasis, ¹⁸F-FDG-negative or equivocal findings, mucinous histology, or recurrence restaging. FAPI-PET/CT offers the potential for more stable contrast enhancement and reproducible quantitative assessment.

Table 4

Table 4. Summary of key parameter comparisons (FAPI vs FDG, Colorectal Cancer).

Peritoneum-dominant tumor

Peritoneal cancer

Malignant peritoneal surface tumors typically present as diffuse small nodules and serosal dissemination; however, their early detection is challenged by minimal lesion volume, low metabolic activity characteristic of mucinous and signet-ring cell subtypes, and physiological intestinal uptake of tracers (72, 73). By selectively targeting fibroblast activation protein (FAP)-expressing tumor stroma—commonly rich in CAFs and characterized by low physiological bowel uptake—FAPI PET/CT yields superior lesion-to-background contrast compared to ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT, especially in mucinous and signet-ring cell carcinomas with low FDG avidity (74, 75). Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis (11 studies, 340 patients) confirms this benefit, demonstrating significantly higher pooled patient-level sensitivity for FAPI PET/CT compared with FDG PET/CT (98.2% vs 55.9%), along with a consistent advantage in lesion-level sensitivity (99.9% vs 27.3%) (74). In a paired single-center cohort (n=46), FAPI demonstrated superior sensitivity for detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis (97.67% vs 72.09%); notably, sensitivity in gastric cancer, including the signet-ring cell subtype, improved from 53.85% with FDG to 100% with FAPI, accompanied by a higher median lesion SUVmax (9.82 vs 3.48) and an elevated imaging-derived peritoneal cancer index (18 vs 6) (76). In a prospective paired-cohort study of 113 patients imaged within a two-week interval, FAPI imaging eliminated the need for fasting, utilized a lower administered activity of 0.3–3.1 MBq/kg (compared with 2.8–7.0 MBq/kg for FDG), and demonstrated a favorable safety profile with no adverse events reported. At the patient level, FAPI exhibited superior sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy relative to FDG (100% vs. 93.2%, 100% vs. 22.22%, and 93.81% vs. 86.73%, respectively), whereas specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were comparable between the two tracers (77). The minimal physiological intestinal uptake yields a high target-to-background ratio, which enhances the visualization of small nodules located on the mesentery, omentum, and pelvic peritoneal surfaces, thus enabling more accurate assessment of lesion burden and peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) estimation (74, 75). In cases of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma, case-control studies reveal intense fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) accumulation (with SUVmax values reaching approximately 20) in areas of peritoneal or omental thickening, even when fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake remains low to moderate—suggesting a potential diagnostic utility for rare histological subtypes and limited disease burden (78). From a clinical perspective, accurate preoperative prediction of the Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index (PCI) is critical for patient selection for cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC), as a PCI exceeding 20 often precludes the procedure. Enhancements in imaging sensitivity and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) could improve the concordance between radiologically assessed PCI and surgical observations, potentially reducing the incidence of non-therapeutic laparotomies. However, prospective multicenter validation and the establishment of standardized image interpretation criteria are imperative (74, 75). Collectively, current evidence indicates that FAPI PET/CT offers superior detection and delineation of peritoneal tumor burden—particularly in FDG-low mucinous and signet-ring cell carcinomas—while forthcoming studies are warranted to further elucidate specificity, pitfalls associated with inflammation-related uptake, and standardization to support broader clinical adoption (74, 76, 77). Radar plots summarize the relative performance of FAPI PET/CT (red) versus ¹⁸-FDG PET/CT (blue) across six key imaging metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, tumor-to-background ratio (TBR), SUVmax_\text{max}max​, lesion detection rate, and staging accuracy, in eight representative cancer types: lung cancer, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, and peritoneal malignancies. These radar plots are intended as a schematic visualization to highlight tumor-specific diagnostic profiles and complementary strengths of the two tracers, rather than to imply direct numerical comparability or statistical equivalence between metrics (Figure 2). Current evidence demonstrates that FAPI-PET/CT is superior to ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in lesion contrast (TBR), diagnostic sensitivity, and accuracy of imaging-based peritoneal cancer index (PCI) assessment for peritoneal malignancies, particularly in low FDG-avid histological subtypes such as mucinous adenocarcinoma and signet ring cell carcinoma, where it provides enhanced detection capability and improved risk stratification. In clinical practice, patients are typically required to fast before ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT to minimize physiological glucose uptake in the gastrointestinal tract and ensure optimal image quality. In contrast, FAPI PET/CT generally does not necessitate fasting, offering greater patient convenience and improving adherence to the examination protocol.

Figure 2

Figure 2. An evidence-weighted radar chart comparison of FAPI PET/CT and ¹⁸-FDG PET/CT performance across eight major solid tumor types.

Other cancers

FAPI-PET/CT demonstrates superior performance in various solid tumors beyond lung, liver, pancreas, ovary, breast, stomach, colorectal, and primary peritoneal malignancies compared to ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT (79).

Cholangiocarcinoma

Independent paired studies have consistently demonstrated that FAPI exhibits higher tumor-to-background ratios and greater peak SUV values compared to FDG within the same patient cohort, further substantiating its superior contrast characteristics and enhanced lesion visualization in biliary system tumors (80). Independent paired studies have consistently shown that FAPI achieves higher tumor-to-background ratios and greater peak SUV values compared to FDG in the same patient population, further supporting its enhanced contrast performance and improved lesion visualization in biliary system tumors (81).

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma

The lower physiological tracer uptake in the myocardium and liver resulted in enhanced tumor-to-background ratios (TBR) and improved interpretability of mediastinal and perihilar lesions, leading to increased staging accuracy and a reduced risk of false-positive interpretations. In a prospective study of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, FAPI-04 achieved a 100% detection rate for primary tumors, surpassing the 96% detection rate of FDG. Researchers highlighted that the low background activity of FAPI in the head and neck region facilitated clearer delineation of complex anatomical boundaries, thereby improving the accuracy of T staging and local invasion assessment (82).

Cervical cancer

Head-to-head data in cervical cancer show no SUVmax difference between FAPI and FDG for primary or metastatic lesions; however, FDG yields more false positives, whereas FAPI reduces misclassification, indicating higher specificity and more reliable lymph-node staging in inflammation-prone pelvic settings. In metabolically cold histologies (e.g., endometrial clear cell carcinoma), FDG uptake is frequently low, while FAPI demonstrates robust avidity in primary and disseminated disease, improving staging; collectively, FAP-targeted stromal imaging increases diagnostic sensitivity and tumor-to-background ratio (80). In addition, early clinical applications have demonstrated that FAPI enables TBR-based quantitative stratification and facilitates imaging-based staging without the need for anesthesia. This technical methodology and its associated quantitative framework lay the groundwork for future standardization efforts and seamless integration with radiotherapy planning protocols (83).

Bladder cancer

In a real-world matched cohort analysis of bladder cancer, FAPI demonstrated significantly higher tumor-to-blood pool TBR compared to FDG (P value= 0.001 for inter-lesion TBR comparisons among metastatic sites), and identified a greater number of metastatic lesions within the same patient (31 vs. 22 total lesions). This finding contrasts with the high background signal observed with FDG in the urinary tract, underscoring FAPI’s combined advantages of elevated tracer uptake and reduced background activity. At the individual lesion level, FAPI exhibited significantly higher SUVmax values in hilar lymph nodes and intrapulmonary metastases compared to FDG within the same patients, further emphasizing its enhanced sensitivity for detecting nodules and nodular metastases during systemic staging of urinary tract malignancies (84).

Thyroid cancer

In the context of differentiated thyroid cancer, paired comparative analyses have shown that the diagnostic accuracy of ¹⁸F-FAPI-42 is largely on par with that of FDG. However, FAPI exhibits higher tracer uptake and improved detection rates for local recurrences and lymph node metastases, particularly in FDG-negative lesions and complex anatomical regions, where its low background activity results in superior TBR. In control cases involving radioactive iodine-refractory (RAIR) disease, FAPI showed significantly reduced physiological uptake in high-background organs such as the brain, liver, and myocardium, thereby enhancing the visualization and contrast of small lesions—including pulmonary micrometastases. These findings further support the complementary role of FAPI in “FDG-cold” and RAIR clinical scenarios (85).

Head and neck tonsillar carcinoma

Head-to-head evaluation of FAPI-PET/CT demonstrates maintained lesion-background contrast and improved lesion visualization despite the high physiological FDG uptake in the pharyngeal lymphoid ring. This performance aligns with the overall low background distribution of FAPI in the head and neck region and corroborates previous evidence from nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) studies (86).

Multiple myeloma

In clinical studies of multiple myeloma, although no statistically significant overall difference in SUVmax was observed between FAPI and FDG for bone lesions, FAPI demonstrated higher SUVmax values in 6 out of 8 individual cases. Moreover, FAPI identified additional bone lesions and medullary cavity involvement in certain patients, features that were not captured by FDG. The potential for FDG to yield false-negative results has been previously reported in the literature. The low background signal associated with FAPI contributes to improved lesion visualization and more comprehensive assessment (87).

Lymphoma

FDG remains superior for overall staging and lesion detection. However, FAPI demonstrates added value in specific subregions such as the liver, central nervous system, and head and neck areas, where its low background activity and higher tumor-to-liver ratios (TLR) provide complementary diagnostic information. These findings suggest that FAPI and FDG offer complementary strengths in diverse biological phenotypes and anatomical contexts (88).

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberan

FAPI provides superior visualization of lesion extent and deep tissue invasion compared to FDG, thereby expanding the boundaries of preoperative assessment and potentially influencing surgical planning. This diagnostic advantage aligns with FAPI’s high uptake in tumors characterized by abundant fibrous stroma (89).

Epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma

FAPI demonstrates superior delineation of diffuse pleural lesions and lymph node involvement at the cardio-diaphragmatic angle compared to FDG. This highlights its advantages in accurately defining lesion boundaries and extent on the pleural surface, particularly in encapsulated (wrapped-type) or metabolically heterogeneous tumors (90).

Venous-type leiomyomatosi

A rare yet frequently misdiagnosed solid tumor, exhibits significantly higher uptake of FAPI compared to FDG (as exemplified by SUVmax values of 9.9 vs. 2.0). This indicates FAPI’s strong affinity for lesions composed of smooth muscle and abundant fibrous stroma, offering enhanced capability in tracing systemic metastatic pathways and facilitating more accurate preoperative risk assessment (91–93). However, FAPI is not universally applicable. It also demonstrates sensitivity to fibro-inflammatory processes. Previous studies have reported co-uptake of FAPI and FDG in conditions such as elastofibroma, as well as in spinal and cardiac tuberculosis, which poses challenges to diagnostic specificity. These findings underscore the importance of integrating morphological features, clinical follow-up, and histopathological evidence during image interpretation to prevent over-staging (80, 94).

To systematically present the comparative performance of FAPI and ¹⁸F-FDG across key parameters in other cancers, this article summarizes and synthesizes the available research data (Table 5). FAPI PET/CT demonstrates a consistent overall advantage across solid tumors in tumor-to-background ratio, lesion detection rate, and staging accuracy when compared with ¹⁸-FDG PET/CT. These trends are particularly driven by tumor types characterized by abundant stromal reaction or low glycolytic activity.In contrast, the specificity of FAPI PET/CT appears more variable across tumor types, reflecting its known sensitivity to fibro-inflammatory processes, whereas ¹⁸-FDG PET/CT maintains relatively stable specificity in selected clinical contexts. Notably, SUVmax shows overall comparable performance between the two tracers, underscoring their complementary biological targets.This schematic summary should be interpreted as an integrative visualization of evidence trends rather than a quantitative comparison (Figure 3). The core value of FAPI-PET/CT lies in its role as a complementary rather than replacement imaging modality. It effectively addresses the diagnostic limitations of FDG in tumors with low metabolic activity, regions with high physiological background uptake, and small lesion foci, thereby expanding the armamentarium of clinical imaging tools. However, current evidence is largely derived from single-center or small-sample studies. Future multicenter, prospective trials are essential to establish standardized SUV/TBR threshold criteria and define tumor subtype-specific “application guidelines” Such efforts will facilitate the accurate integration of FAPI-PET/CT into clinical diagnostic and therapeutic pathways, ultimately enabling the translation of its technical advantages into tangible patient benefits.

Table 5

Table 5. Summary of key parameter comparisons (FAPI vs FDG, Other Cancers).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Schematic radar plot summarizing overall performance trends of FAPI PET/CT versus ¹⁸-FDG PET/CT across solid tumors.

Current challenges and prospects for future development

FAP is highly expressed on CAFs in most epithelial malignancies, offering a stromal-targeted imaging target that is distinct from glucose metabolism and contributing to the rapid adoption of FAPI PET/CT as a complementary—rather than a complete substitute for—¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT (18, 96). FAPI imaging capitalizes on the widespread presence and functional contributions of CAFs in tumor invasion, immune modulation, and extracellular matrix remodeling, thereby enhancing lesion visibility even in cases where tumor cell glycolysis is limited (18). Clinical reviews summarize the extensive early experience across various tumor types, highlighting both the potential of FAPI PET/CT and the necessity for standardization (18, 97).

Technically, FAPI tracers frequently achieve higher tumor-to-background ratios compared to FDG, owing to their low physiological uptake in many normal organs, which enhances lesion detectability in the abdomen and central nervous system (CNS) (18, 98). Early human data with ¹⁸F-FAPI-42 suggest a relatively flexible acquisition window (approximately 60–120 minutes post-injection), characterized by high tumor uptake and generally low standardized uptake values (SUVs) in normal organs, thereby facilitating adaptable imaging workflows (99).

Radiochemistry innovations, such as FAPI-74—which is available as either a ⁶⁸Ga kit or ¹⁸F-AlF formulation—expand accessibility while maintaining favorable dosimetry profiles (14). In parallel, ¹⁸F-labeled peptides (e.g., ¹⁸F-FAP-2286 and ¹⁸F-AlF-FAP-NUR) demonstrate excellent image quality and offer the advantage of not requiring strict dietary or fasting protocols, thereby facilitating their integration into routine clinical practice (91, 100).

Head-to-head evidence indicates context-dependent performance: in mixed-cancer cohorts, FAPI frequently achieves higher target-to-background ratios with comparable or superior lesion detection compared to FDG, although results may vary by anatomical site and histological subtype (18, 96). In liver metastases ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI detects more lesions than FDG and achieves significantly higher tumor-to-background ratios (TBR), despite occasionally lower absolute lesion SUVmax values, thereby substantially improving lesion conspicuity (101). Meta-analytic synthesis suggests that FAPI outperforms FDG in the detection of nodal metastases, yet demonstrates no significant advantage in the assessment of osseous disease, thereby highlighting its domain-specific diagnostic strengths (102). Disease-specific studies, such as those focused on cholangiocarcinoma, consistently report superior staging performance with FAPI-based imaging compared to FDG and/or CT (80). Prospective studies directly comparing FAPI with FDG for tumor staging are currently underway, reflecting a transition from feasibility assessment to evaluations of clinical decision impact (79, 97).

Biologically, FAPI PET visualizes the tumor microenvironment rather than tumor glycolysis, a mechanistic distinction that enhances sensitivity in desmoplastic cancers while also rendering the modality susceptible to fibroblast-rich benign processes. A systematic review has cataloged numerous non-malignant FAPI-avid conditions—including post-surgical scars, fibrotic or inflammatory lesions, and arthritis—that require clinicoradiologic correlation to prevent over-staging. For example, pancreatitis may exhibit FAPI uptake resembling that of pancreatic cancer, although careful PET/MR evaluation can assist in differentiation. Tuberculosis (including cardiac involvement) can demonstrate avidity for both FDG and FAPI, underscoring the importance of pathologic or microbiologic confirmation in endemic regions (18). Renal findings observed with FAPI imaging—such as cortical signal accumulation in cases of acute kidney injury—highlight how FAP expression during tissue remodeling can generate biologically plausible confounders that pose diagnostic challenges (97, 103).

A promising near-term strategy involves purposeful dual-tracer imaging, which integrates complementary metabolic signals from tumor cells and stromal components to reduce false-negative results and improve tumor phenotyping (79, 102). Single-session FDG+FAPI protocols are feasible and have shown clinically meaningful improvements in staging precision; in esophageal cancer, dual-tracer imaging has influenced radiotherapy target delineation and dose planning decisions (9, 102). Combining PET with MRI takes advantage of MRI’s excellent soft-tissue contrast to improve radiation treatment planning and evaluation of therapeutic response, especially in the pelvic and head-and-neck area (98, 104). Total-body systems can capture whole-organism kinetic data from both tracers, potentially enabling parametric mapping and microdosimetry approaches that correlate imaging phenotypes with clinical outcomes (98).

Theranostics represents another promising frontier: FAPI-based radioligand therapy has entered first-in-human trials (e.g., 90Y/177Lu-FAPI-46), and peptide-based agents such as FAP-2286 provide a genuine imaging-to-therapy continuum (91, 105). Novel chemotypes (e.g., heterobivalent ⁶⁸Ga-FAPI-LM3) aim to achieve stronger binding affinity and enhanced retention, whereas ¹⁸F-labeling strategies (e.g., ¹⁸F-FAP-2286, ¹⁸F-AlF-FAP-NUR) are designed to support mass production and logistical scalability, facilitating broader clinical adoption (100). Forward-looking trials should correlate imaging phenotypes—such as stromal density, nodal versus osseous tropism, and kinetic parameters—with patient-level endpoints, and evaluate how dual-tracer or multimodal imaging strategies influence decisions regarding surgery, radiotherapy, or systemic therapy (9, 96).

In summary, FAPI PET/CT complements ¹⁸F-FDG by visualizing the stromal component with high contrast and through practical imaging workflows. However, Current barriers to the cost-effectiveness evaluation of FAPI PET/CT include limited large-scale commercial availability of radiotracers, inconsistent production processes and regulatory approvals, substantial heterogeneity among FAPI variants and imaging protocols without established standardization, a scarcity of prospective multicenter cost-effectiveness studies, and an unquantified incremental benefit for clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.the occurrence of biologically plausible false positives and variable performance across different anatomical sites necessitates its careful integration with clinical context, adherence to standardized protocols, and, in many clinical settings, the deliberate use of dual-tracer or multimodal imaging strategies to optimize individualized oncologic care.

Conclusion

FAPI PET/CT has rapidly evolved into a clinically valuable complementary tool—as opposed to a direct replacement—to ¹⁸F-FDG, supported by head-to-head comparisons and meta-analytic evidence, and is now formally recognized by the first joint SNMMI/EANM practice guideline for FAP PET (102, 106, 107). In the short term, FAPI’s consistently low physiological background activity in key organs (e.g., brain, liver, oral mucosa) results in high tumor-to-background ratios and lesion conspicuity, thereby facilitating accurate staging and target delineation in scenarios where FDG may be limited by variable normal tissue uptake (106). Optimized protocols (e.g., early post-injection imaging windows) further streamline workflow and may improve lesion detection, while maintaining favorable biodistribution and dosimetric profiles across FAPI-targeted agents (106, 108). Pooled head-to-head analyses demonstrate that FAPI enhances the detection of lymph node metastases across a range of cancer types, with performance for bone metastases being broadly comparable to that of FDG. These findings support the near-term implementation of FAPI PET/CT for nodal mapping and comprehensive cancer staging (102). In parallel, same-session dual-tracer protocols (FDG + FAPI) are technically feasible and demonstrate superior performance compared to single-tracer imaging, enabling comprehensive whole-patient phenotyping by integrating information on glycolysis and stromal activation (109). The biological rationale for FAPI imaging is robust, CAF-rich tumor stroma abundantly expresses FAP, allowing visualization of a microenvironmental hallmark that is distinct from tumor glucose metabolism and thus complementary to FDG (110). Nevertheless, short-term clinical implementation must account for well-documented limitations—FAPI uptake in non-malignant fibroinflammatory conditions (e.g., degenerative bone or joint disease, fibrosis, post-surgical scars, pancreatitis, granulomatous infections) may decrease diagnostic specificity and necessitates careful clinicoradiologic correlation (9, 97, 111). Looking to the long term, the integration of FDG and FAPI into unified, indication-specific imaging algorithms—including single-session dual-tracer protocols—holds promise for enhanced phenotyping to guide response-adaptive therapy, surgical or radiotherapy planning, and the earlier detection of micrometastatic disease (102, 106, 109).

To provide a concise and practice-focused overview, we have consolidated the comparative evidence—organized by disease category, research model, and principal experimental conditions—into a synthesized evidence map (Table 6). This table highlights the domains in which FAPI PET/CT exhibits the most consistent added value compared to ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. Current evidence highlights heterogeneity across tumor types and study designs, emphasizing the need for large-scale, prospective, tumor-specific clinical trials that utilize harmonized protocols and quantitative endpoints (102). The near-term value of FAPI PET/CT lies in its ability to improve lesion conspicuity, enhance nodal assessment accuracy, and provide actionable dual-tracer synergy. In the long term, its potential resides in the development of standardized, biology-informed imaging pathways that integrate stromal and metabolic biomarkers to enable personalized cancer care.

Table 6

Table 6. This review provides a summary, organized by disease type, model, and imaging conditions, of the comparative performance between FAPI PET and ¹⁸F-FDG PET.

Author contributions

YY: Writing – original draft. JWZ: Writing – original draft. JX: Writing – original draft. CY: Writing – original draft. XG: Writing – original draft. JYZ: Writing – original draft. PW: Writing – original draft. LL: Writing – review & editing. JZZ: Writing – review & editing. JY: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. CC: Writing – original draft. JJ: Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. BG: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Software.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The research was funded by multiple sources, including the Science and Technology Plan of Guilin (grant numbers: [20230135-1-1]), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province (grant numbers: [AB25069043], [2023GXNSFAA026061], [2024GXNSFAA010335], [2025GXNSFAA069989]), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers: [32360170], [82460158], [82204208], [82460677]), the Independent project of the Guangxi Key Laboratory of Tumor Immunity and Microenvironment Regulation (grant numbers: [203030302516], [203030302212]), Guangxi Provincial College Students’ innovation and entrepreneurship training program (grant numbers: [202410601019], [202510601049]).

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Glossary

¹⁸F-FDG: Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose

AUC: Area Under the Curve

CAF(s): Cancer-Associated Fibroblast(s)

CRC: Colorectal Cancer

CRS-HIPEC: Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

CT: Computed Tomography

DFSP: Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans

DTC: Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

EANM: European Association of Nuclear Medicine

EOC: Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

FAP: Fibroblast Activation Protein

FAPI: Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor

GLUT: Glucose Transporter

GLUT1: Glucose Transporter 1

HCC: Hepatocellular Carcinoma

ICC: Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

LDCT: Low-Dose Computed Tomography

LN: Lymph Node

LNM: Lymph Node Metastasis

MRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging

NPC: Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

NPV: Negative Predictive Value

NSCLC: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

OC: Ovarian Cancer

PDAC: Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

PET: Positron Emission Tomography

PET/CT: Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography

PET/MR: Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance

PPV: Positive Predictive Value

RAIR: Radioactive Iodine-Refractory

ROC: Receiver Operating Characteristic

SNMMI: Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

SRCC: Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma

SUV: Standardized Uptake Value

SUVmax: Maximum Standardized Uptake Value

TBR: Tumor-to-Background Ratio

TLR: Tumor-to-Liver Ratió

TME: Tumor Microenvironment

TNM: Tumor–Node–Metastasis

VOI: Volume of Interest.

References

1. Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, and Townsend DW. PET/CT: form and function. Radiology. (2007) 242:360–85. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2422051113

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Portnow LH, Vaillancourt DE, and Okun MS. The history of cerebral PET scanning. Neurology. (2013) 80:952–6. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318285c135

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Kung BT, Mehdizadeh Seraj S, Zirakchian Zadeh M, Rojulpote C, Kothekar E, Ayubcha C, et al. An update on the role of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in major infectious and inflammatory diseases. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2019) 9:255–73.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

4. Feng H, Wang X, Chen J, Cui J, Gao T, Gao Y, et al. Nuclear imaging of glucose metabolism: Beyond¹⁸ F-FDG. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. (2019) 2019:1–12. doi: 10.1155/2019/7954854

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Lau J, Rousseau E, Kwon D, Lin KS, Bénard F, and Chen X. Insight into the development of PET radiopharmaceuticals for oncology. Cancers. (2020) 12:1312. doi: 10.3390/cancers12051312

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Hess S, Høilund-Carlsen PF, and Alavi A. Historic images in nuclear medicine: 1976: the first issue of clinical nuclear medicine and the first human FDG study. Clin Nucl Med. (2014) 39:701–3. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000000487

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Pijl JP, Nienhuis PH, Kwee TC, Glaudemans AWJM, Slart RHJA, and Gormsen LC. Limitations and pitfalls of FDG-PET/CT in infection and inflammation. Semin Nucl Med. (2021) 51:633–45. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2021.06.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Tania Rahman W, Wale DJ, Viglianti BL, Townsend DM, Manganaro MS, Gross MD, et al. The impact of infection and inflammation in oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. BioMed Pharmacother Biomed Pharmacother. (2019) 117:109168. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2019.109168

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Chandekar KR, Prashanth A, Vinjamuri S, and Kumar R. FAPI PET/CT imaging-an updated review. Diagn Basel Switz. (2023) 13:2018. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13122018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Fitzgerald AA and Weiner LM. The role of fibroblast activation protein in health and Malignancy. Cancer Metastasis Rev. (2020) 39:783–803. doi: 10.1007/s10555-020-09909-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Xin L, Gao J, Zheng Z, Chen Y, Lv S, Zhao Z, et al. Fibroblast activation protein-α as a target in the bench-to-bedside diagnosis and treatment of tumors: A narrative review. Front Oncol. (2021) 11:648187. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.648187

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Bentestuen M, Ladekarl M, Knudsen A, and Zacho HD. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical value of [68Ga]ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT for staging patients with ovarian cancer: Study protocol for a prospective clinical trial. BMC Cancer. (2024) 24:699. doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-12461-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Huang R, Pu Y, Huang S, Yang C, Yang F, Pu Y, et al. FAPI-PET/CT in cancer imaging: A potential novel molecule of the century. Front Oncol. (2022) 12:854658. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.854658

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Mori Y, Novruzov E, Schmitt D, Cardinale J, Watabe T, Choyke PL, et al. Clinical applications of fibroblast activation protein inhibitor positron emission tomography (FAPI-PET). NPJ Imaging. (2024) 2:48. doi: 10.1038/s44303-024-00053-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Jacobson FL and Van den Abbeele AD. Importance of 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT for detection of cancer. Radiology. (2022) 303:200–1. doi: 10.1148/radiol.212884

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Cheng Z, Wang S, Xu S, Du B, Li X, and Li Y. FAPI PET/CT in diagnostic and treatment management of colorectal cancer: Review of current research status. J Clin Med. (2023) 12:577. doi: 10.3390/jcm12020577

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Nasim F, Sabath BF, and Eapen GA. Lung cancer. Med Clin North Am. (2019) 103:463–73. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2018.12.006

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Giesel FL, Adeberg S, Syed M, Lindner T, Jiménez-Franco LD, Mavriopoulou E, et al. FAPI-74 PET/CT using either 18F-AlF or cold-kit 68Ga labeling: Biodistribution, radiation dosimetry, and tumor delineation in lung cancer patients. J Nucl Med. (2021) 62:201–7. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.245084

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Wei Y, Ma L, Li P, et al. FAPI compared with FDG PET/CT for diagnosis of primary and metastatic lung cancer. Radiology. (2023) 308:e222785. doi: 10.1148/radiol.222785

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Sun Y, Sun Y, Li Z, et al. 18F-FAPI PET/CT performs better in evaluating mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes in patients with lung cancer: Comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Med Res. (2024) 29:9. doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01494-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Li Y, Zhang Y, Guo Z, et al. 18F]FAPI adds value to [18F]FDG PET/CT for diagnosing lymph node metastases in stage I-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer: A prospective study. Cancer Imaging. (2024) 24:68. doi: 10.1186/s40644-024-00701-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Qin J, Han C, Li H, et al. Relationship between PD-L1 expression and [18F]FAPI versus [18F]FDG uptake on PET/CT in lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2025) 52:3211–22. doi: 10.1007/s00259-025-07201-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Wang L, Tang G, Hu K, et al. Comparison of⁶⁸ ga-FAPI and¹⁸ F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of advanced lung cancer. Radiology. (2022) 303:191–9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.211424

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Can C, Kepenek F, Kömek H, et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun. (2022) 43:1084–91. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001607

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Yang Q, Huang D, Wu J, Zhong H, Han Y, Jiang H, et al. Performance of [18F]FDG PET/CT versus FAPI PET/CT for lung cancer assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. (2023) 34:1077–85. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10013-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Gu B, Luo Z, He X, Wang J, and Song S. 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT images in a patient with extrapulmonary tuberculosis mimicking Malignant tumor. Clin Nucl Med. (2020) 45:865–7. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003279

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Gaona-Luviano P, Medina-Gaona LA, and Magaña-Pérez K. Epidemiology of ovarian cancer. Chin Clin Oncol. (2020) 9:47–7. doi: 10.21037/cco-20-34

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Chen J, Xu K, Li C, Tian Y, Li L, Wen B, et al. 68Ga]ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the evaluation of epithelial ovarian cancer: Comparison with [18F]F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2023) 50:4064–76. doi: 10.1007/s00259-023-06369-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Liu Y, Pan J, Jing F, Chen X, Zhao X, Zhang J, et al. Comparison of 68Ga-FAPI-04 and 18F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing ovarian cancer. Abdom Radiol. (2024) 49:4531–42. doi: 10.1007/s00261-024-04469-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Liu S, Feng Z, Xu X, Ge H, Ju X, Wu X, et al. Head-to-head comparison of [18F]-FDG and [68 Ga]-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT for radiological evaluation of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2023) 50:1521–31. doi: 10.1007/s00259-022-06096-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Zheng W, Liu L, Feng Y, Wang L, and Chen Y. Comparison of 68Ga-FAPI-04 and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography in the detection of ovarian Malignancies. Nucl Med Commun. (2023) 44:194–203. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001653

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Xi Y, Sun L, Che X, Huang X, Liu H, Wang Q, et al. A comparative study of [68Ga]ga-FAPI-04 PET/MR and [18F]FDG PET/CT in the diagnostic accuracy and resectability prediction of ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2023) 50:2885–98. doi: 10.1007/s00259-023-06235-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Sun L, Hao P, and Peng R. Comparison of 68Ga-FAPI PET CT/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in metastatic lesions of gynecological cancers: A systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis. Acta Radiol. (2025) 66:174–83. doi: 10.1177/02841851241297836

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Anastasiadi Z, Lianos GD, Ignatiadou E, Harissis HV, and Mitsis M. Breast cancer in young women: An overview. Update Surg. (2017) 69:313–7. doi: 10.1007/s13304-017-0424-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Kömek H, Can C, Güzel Y, Arslan A, Güler H, Özkan E, et al. 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT, a new step in breast cancer imaging: A comparative pilot study with the 18F-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. (2021) 35:744–52. doi: 10.1007/s12149-021-01616-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Zheng S, Lin J, Zhu Y, Chen L, Wang X, Cheng Z, et al. 68Ga-FAPI versus 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluating newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: A head-to-head comparative study. Clin Nucl Med. (2023) 48:e104–9. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004523

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Alın G, Arslan E, Aksoy T, Uslu M, Öztürk M, Yılmaz F, et al. 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT in selected breast cancer patients with low FDG affinity: A head-to-head comparative study. Clin Nucl Med. (2023) 48:e420–30. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004751

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Wang Q, Tang W, Cai L, and Chen Y. Non-18F-FDG-avid intrahepatic metastasis of breast cancer revealed by 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. (2022) 47:228–30. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003905

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Hirmas N, Hamacher R, Sraieb M, Kessler L, Pabst KM, Barbato F, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of⁶⁸ ga-FAPI Versus¹⁸ F-FDG PET in patients with various Malignancies. J Nucl Med. (2024) 65:372–8. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.123.266652

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Guglielmo P, Alongi P, Baratto L, Abenavoli E, Buschiazzo A, Celesti G, et al. Head-to-head comparison of FDG and radiolabeled FAPI PET: A systematic review of the literature. Life. (2023) 13:1821. doi: 10.3390/life13091821

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Salazar J and Le A. The heterogeneity of liver cancer metabolism. Adv Exp Med Biol. (2021) 1311:127–36. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-65768-0_9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. 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 [68Ga]ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT versus MRI and [18F]-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2021) 48:1604–17. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-05095-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Liang Z, Peng H, Li W, and Liu Z. Head-to-head study of [18F]FAPI-04 PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/CT for non-invasive assessment of liver cancer and its immunohistochemical markers. BMC Cancer. (2024) 24:1378. doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-13153-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Wang H, Zhu W, Ren S, Kong Y, Huang Q, Zhao J, et al. 68Ga-FAPI-04 versus 18F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Front Oncol. (2021) 11:693640. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.693640

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Zhang J, Jiang S, Li M, Xue H, Zhong X, Li S, et al. Head-to-head comparison of 18F-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in staging and therapeutic management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Imaging. (2023) 23:106. doi: 10.1186/s40644-023-00626-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Singh P, Singhal T, Parida GK, Rahman A, and Agrawal K. Diagnostic performance of FAPI PET/CT vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluation of liver tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. (2022) 33:77–89. doi: 10.4274/mirt.galenos.2024.99705

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Ilic M and Ilic I. Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. (2016) 22:9694–705. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i44.9694

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Veldhuijzen van Zanten SEM, Pieterman KJ, Wijnhoven BPL, Pruis IJ, Groot Koerkamp B, van Driel LMJW, et al. FAPI PET versus FDG PET, CT or MRI for staging pancreatic-, gastric- and cholangiocarcinoma: Systematic review and head-to-head comparisons of diagnostic performances. Diagnostics. (2022) 12:1958. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12081958

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Hu X, Li X, Wang P, and Cai J. The role of FAPI PET imaging in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis compared with 18F-FDG PET. Acad Radiol. (2025) 32:191–200. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2024.07.032

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Liu Q, Shi S, Liu S, Xu X, Hu S, Zhang J, et al. The added value of [68Ga]ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in pancreatic cancer: A comparison to [18F]F-FDG. Eur Radiol. (2023) 33:5007–16. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-09445-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Yun WG, Gil J, Choi H, Han Y, Jung HS, Cho YJ, et al. Prospective comparison of [18F]FDG and [18F]AIF-FAPI-74 PET/CT in the evaluation of potentially resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Mol Imaging Biol. (2024) 26:1068–77. doi: 10.1007/s11307-024-01950-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Karimi P, Islami F, Anandasabapathy S, Freedman ND, and Kamangar F. Gastric cancer: Descriptive epidemiology, risk factors, screening, and prevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. (2014) 23:700–13. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1057

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Wang B, Zhao X, Liu Y, Zhang Z, Chen X, Jing F, et al. Comparison of 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT with 18F-FDG PET/CT for diagnosis and staging of gastric and colorectal cancer. Nucl Med Commun. (2024) 45:612–21. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001845

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Miao Y, Feng R, Yu T, Guo R, Zhang M, Wang Y, et al. Value of⁶⁸ ga-FAPI-04 and¹⁸ F-FDG PET/CT in early prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric cancer. J Nucl Med. (2024) 65:213–20. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.123.266403

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Ruan D, Zhao L, Cai J, Xu W, Sun L, Li J, et al. Evaluation of FAPI PET imaging in gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Theranostics. (2023) 13:4694–710. doi: 10.7150/thno.88335

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Kuten J, Levine C, Shamni O, Pelles S, Wolf I, Lahat G, et al. Head-to-head comparison of [68Ga]ga-FAPI-04 and [18F]-FDG PET/CT in evaluating the extent of disease in gastric adenocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2022) 49:743–50. doi: 10.1007/s00259-021-05494-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Qin C, Shao F, Gai Y, Liu Q, Ruan W, Liu F, et al. 68Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/MR in the evaluation of gastric carcinomas: Comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. (2022) 63:81–8. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.258467

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Du T, Zhang S, Cui XM, Hu RH, Wang HY, Jiang JJ, et al. Comparison of [68Ga]ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/MRI in the preoperative diagnosis of gastric cancer. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2023) 2023:1–6. doi: 10.1155/2023/6351330

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Kiran MY, Ercan LD, Karatay E, Has Simsek D, and Sanli Y. Unusual metastasis of signet-ring cell gastric cancer that could not be detected with 18F-FDG PET but with 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. (2024) 49:e215–6. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000005154

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Miao Y, Feng R, Guo R, Huang X, Hai W, Li J, et al. Utility of [68Ga]FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG dual-tracer PET/CT in the initial evaluation of gastric cancer. Eur Radiol. (2023) 33:4355–66. doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-09321-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Pang Y, Zhao L, Luo Z, Hao B, Wu H, Lin Q, et al. Comparison of⁶⁸ ga-FAPI and¹⁸ F-FDG uptake in gastric, duodenal, and colorectal cancers. Radiology. (2021) 298:393–402. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020203275

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Zhang X, Zhao J, Qi G, Chen Y, Guo X, Zhang J, et al. USP48 inhibits colorectal cancer progression and promotes M1-like macrophage polarization by stabilizing TAK1. Exp Cell Res. (2025) 446:114469. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2025.114469

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Zhao J, Bai X, Du J, Chen Y, Guo X, Zhang J, et al. Tryptophan metabolism: From physiological functions to key roles and therapeutic targets in cancer (Review). Oncol Rep. (2025) 54:1–16. doi: 10.3892/or.2025.8919

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Dong Y, Sun P, Wu H, Zhong J, Cao M, Tang G, et al. PET/CT imaging fibroblast activation protein in initial colorectal cancer: Compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT. Nucl Med Commun. (2023) 44:1011–9. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001751

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Zhuang Z, Zhang Y, Yang X, Deng X, and Wang Z. Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic performance between 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol. (2024) 49:3166–74. doi: 10.1007/s00261-024-04266-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Kömek H, Can C, Kaplan İ, Gündoğan C, Kepenek F, Karaoğlan H, et al. Comparison of [68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2022) 49:3898–909. doi: 10.1007/s00259-022-05839-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Xi Y, Sun Y, Gu B, Bian L, and Song S. Evaluation of 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancers. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. (2024) 49:100848. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100848

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Elekonawo FMK, Starremans B, Laurens ST, Bremers AJA, de Wilt JHW, Heijmen L, et al. Can [18F]F-FDG PET/CT be used to assess the pre-operative extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with colorectal cancer? Abdom Radiol. (2020) 45:301–6. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-02268-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Prashanth A, Kumar Ravichander S, Eswaran P, Kalyan S, and Maheswari Babu S. Diagnostic performance of ga-68 FAPI 04 PET/CT in colorectal Malignancies. Nucl Med Commun. (2023) 44:276–83. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001661

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Kratochwil C, Flechsig P, Lindner T, Abderrahim L, Altmann A, Mier W, et al. 68Ga-FAPI PET/CT: Tracer uptake in 28 different kinds of cancer. J Nucl Med. (2019) 60:801–5. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.227967

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Lin X, Li Y, Wang S, Zhang Y, Chen X, Wei M, et al. Diagnostic value of [68Ga]ga-FAPI-04 in patients with colorectal cancer in comparison with [18F]F-FDG PET/CT. Front Oncol. (2023) 12:1087792. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1087792

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Fu C, Zhang B, Guo T, and Li J. Imaging evaluation of peritoneal metastasis: Current and promising techniques. Korean J Radiol. (2024) 25:86. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2023.0840

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Dondi F, Albano D, Giubbini R, and Bertagna F. 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for the evaluation of gastric signet ring cell carcinoma: A systematic review. Nucl Med Commun. (2021) 42:1293–300. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001481

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

74. Gege Z, Xueju W, and Bin J. Head-to-head comparison of⁶⁸ ga-FAPI PET/CT and FDG PET/CT for the detection of peritoneal metastases: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. (2023) 220:490–8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.22.28402

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

75. Zhang X, Zhang R, Zheng Q, He Z, Lan B, Zhong Y, et al. 18F-FAPI-42 PET/CT enhances the diagnostic efficacy for peritoneal metastasis of colorectal cancer and guides treatment decisions: An original retrospective study. Gastroenterol Rep. (2024) 12:goae104. doi: 10.1093/gastro/goae104

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

76. Zhao L, Pang Y, Luo Z, Fu K, Yang T, Zhao L, et al. Role of [68Ga]ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the evaluation of peritoneal carcinomatosis and comparison with [18F]-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2021) 48:1944–55. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-05146-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Chen X, Pang X, Zhao Y, Zhao X, Liu Y, Jing F, et al. 68Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and 18F-FDG PET/CT: A head-to-head comparison for peritoneal carcinomatosis diagnostic accuracy. Abdom Radiol. (2025) 50:3137–47. doi: 10.1007/s00261-024-04653-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

78. Gündoğan C, Güzel Y, Kömek H, Etem H, and Kaplan İ. 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT versus 18F-FDG PET/CT in Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Clin Nucl Med. (2022) 47:e113–5. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003858

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

79. Lan L, Zhang S, Xu T, Liu H, Wang W, Feng Y, et al. Prospective comparison of⁶⁸ ga-FAPI versus¹⁸ F-FDG PET/CT for tumor staging in biliary tract cancers. Radiology. (2022) 304:648–57. doi: 10.1148/radiol.213118

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

80. Pabst KM, Trajkovic-Arsic M, Cheung PFY, Ballke S, Steiger K, Bartel T, et al. Superior tumor detection for 68Ga-FAPI-46 versus 18F-FDG PET/CT and conventional CT in patients with cholangiocarcinoma. J Nucl Med. (2023) 64:1049–55. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.122.265215

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Shu Q, He X, Chen X, Liu M, Chen Y, and Cai L. Head-to-head comparison of 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT for radiological evaluation of cervical cancer. Clin Nucl Med. (2023) 48:928–32. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004833

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

82. Ding H, Liang J, Qiu L, Xu T, Cai L, Wan Q, et al. Prospective comparison of 68Ga-FAPI-04 and 18F-FDG PET/CT for tumor staging in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Front Oncol. (2022) 12:1047010. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1047010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

83. Wegen S, Roth KS, Weindler J, Claus K, Linde P, Trommer M, et al. First clinical experience with [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-46-PET/CT versus [18F]F-FDG PET/CT for nodal staging in cervical cancer. Clin Nucl Med. (2023) 48:150–5. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004505

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

84. Novruzov E, Dendl K, Ndlovu H, Choyke PL, Dabir M, Beu M, et al. Head-to-head intra-individual comparison of [68Ga]-FAPI and [18F]-FDG PET/CT in patients with bladder cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. (2022) 24:651–8. doi: 10.1007/s11307-022-01715-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

85. Mu X, Huang X, Jiang Z, Li M, Jia L, Lv Z, et al. 18F]FAPI-42 PET/CT in differentiated thyroid cancer: Diagnostic performance, uptake values, and comparison with 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2023) 50:1205–15. doi: 10.1007/s00259-022-06067-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

86. Wu J, Zhang S, Rao Z, Wang Y, and Zhang C. Comparison of 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. Clin Nucl Med. (2022) 47:629–31. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004212

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

87. Elboga U, Sahin E, Cayirli YB, Okuyan M, Aktas G, Haydaroglu Sahin H, et al. Comparison of [68Ga]-FAPI PET/CT and [18F]-FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma: Clinical experience. Tomogr Ann Arbor Mich. (2022) 8:293–302. doi: 10.3390/tomography8010024

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

88. Chen X, Wang S, Lai Y, Wang G, Wei M, Jin X, et al. Fibroblast activation protein and glycolysis in lymphoma diagnosis: Comparison of⁶⁸ ga-FAPI PET/CT and¹⁸ F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. (2023) 64:1399–405. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.123.265530

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

89. Ji M, Ma G, Liu C, Gu B, Du X, Ou X, et al. Head-to-head comparison of [68Ga]ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT for the evaluation of tonsil cancer and lymph node metastases: A single-centre retrospective study. Cancer Imaging. (2024) 24:56. doi: 10.1186/s40644-024-00699-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

90. Dong A, Zhao B, Cheng C, and Zuo C. 68Ga-FAPI-04 versus 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection of epithelioid Malignant pleural mesothelioma. Clin Nucl Med. (2022) 47:980–1. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004269

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

91. Zhao L, Pang Y, Fang J, Chen J, Zhou Y, Sun L, et al. Design, preclinical evaluation, and clinical translation of 68Ga-FAPI-LM3, a heterobivalent molecule for PET imaging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Nucl Med. (2024) 65:394–401. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.123.266183

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

92. Zhao J, Guo X, Li H, Chen Y, Du J, Zhang J, et al. Regulation of disease signaling by YOD1: Potential implications for therapeutic strategies. Cancer Cell Int. (2025) 25:232–53. doi: 10.1186/s12935-025-03881-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

93. Bai X, Gao L, Zhao J, Liao W, Chen Y, Guo X, et al. Association between ESRα and ESRβ polymorphisms and prostate cancer risk: Meta-analysis. Front Oncol. (2025) 15:1630363. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1630363

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

94. Pang Y, Hao B, Shang Q, Sun L, and Chen H. Comparison of 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in a patient with cholangiocellular carcinoma: A case report. Clin Nucl Med. (2020) 45:566–7. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003056

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

95. Liu H, Hu Z, Yang X, Dai T, and Chen Y. Comparison of [68Ga]ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG uptake in esophageal cancer. Front Oncol. (2022) 12:875081. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.875081

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

96. Bentestuen M, Al-Obaydi N, and Zacho HD. FAPI-avid nonmalignant PET/CT findings: An expedited systematic review. Semin Nucl Med. (2023) 53:694–705. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2023.02.001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

97. Duan Y, Wang X, and Cheng Z. Increased 18F-FAPI and 18F-FDG uptake in cardiac tuberculosis mimicking Malignant tumour. Eur Heart J - Cardiovasc Imaging. (2024) 26:181–1. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeae266

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

98. Shou Y, Xue Q, Yuan J, and Zhao J. 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/MR is helpful in differential diagnosis of pancreatitis from pancreatic Malignancy compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT: A case report. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. (2021) 5:12. doi: 10.1186/s41824-021-00106-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

99. Wass G, Clifford K, and Subramaniam RM. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of FAPI PET/CT in oncologic studies: Systematic review and metaanalysis. J Nucl Med. (2023) 64:1218–24. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.123.265471

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

100. Pang Y, Zhao L, Meng T, Xu W, Lin Q, Wu H, et al. PET imaging of fibroblast activation protein in various types of cancer using 68Ga-FAP-2286: Comparison with 18F-FDG and 68Ga-FAPI-46 in a single-center, prospective study. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. (2023) 64:386–94. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.122.264544

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

101. Kaplan İ, Kepenek F, Güzel Y, Can C, and Kömek H. The role of 68Ga FAPI-04 and 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting liver metastases in different types of cancer. Nukl - Nucl. (2023) 62:252–9. doi: 10.1055/a-2127-7699

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

102. Wu G, Wang D, Zhang W, Jia Z, Li J, and Zhang L. Head-to-head comparison of [68Ga]ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET in the detection of bone and lymph node metastasis in various cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. (2024) 171:111302. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111302

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

103. Chi X, Yang X, Li G, Wu H, Huang J, Qi Y, et al. A comparative study of 18F-FAPI-42 and 18F-FDG PET/CT for evaluating acute kidney injury in cancer patients. Mol Imaging Biol. (2023) 25:671–80. doi: 10.1007/s11307-023-01820-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

104. Chen H, Pang Y, Wu J, Zhao L, Hao B, Wu J, 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) 47:1820–32. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-04769-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

105. Liu L, Zhong J, Zhang Z, Ye X, Wang X, Liu S, et al. Preclinical study and first-in-human imaging of [18F]FAP-2286, and comparison with 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in various cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2024) 51:2012–22. doi: 10.1007/s00259-024-06626-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

106. Giesel FL, Kratochwil C, Schlittenhardt J, Dendl K, Eiber M, Staudinger F, et al. Head-to-head intra-individual comparison of biodistribution and tumor uptake of 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2021) 48:4377–85. doi: 10.1007/s00259-021-05307-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

107. Hope TA, Calais J, Goenka AH, Haberkorn U, Konijnenberg M, McConathy J, et al. SNMMI procedure standard/EANM practice guideline for fibroblast activation protein (FAP) PET. J Nucl Med. (2025) 66:26–33. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.124.269002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

108. Abbasi S, Dehghani M, Khademi S, Irajirad R, Pakdin Parizi Z, Sahebi M, et al. Revolutionizing cancer diagnosis and dose biodistribution: A meta-analysis of [68ga] FAPI- 46 vs. [18f] FDG imaging. Syst Rev. (2025) 14. doi: 10.1186/s13643-025-02835-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

109. Hu K, Wang L, Wu H, Huang S, Tian Y, Wang Q, et al. 18F]FAPI-42 PET imaging in cancer patients: Optimal acquisition time, biodistribution, and comparison with [68Ga]ga-FAPI-04. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2022) 49:2833–43. doi: 10.1007/s00259-021-05646-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

110. Wegen S, Claus K, Linde P, Rosenbrock J, Trommer M, Zander T, et al. Impact of FAPI-46/dual-tracer PET/CT imaging on radiotherapeutic management in esophageal cancer. Radiat Oncol. (2024) 19:44. doi: 10.1186/s13014-024-02430-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

111. Singh SB. The comparative utility of FAPI-based PET radiotracers over [18F]FDG in the assessment of Malignancies. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2024) 14:190–207. doi: 10.62347/JXZI9315

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar