A clinical strategy to improve the diagnostic performance of 3T non-contrast coronary MRA and noninvasively evaluate coronary distensibility: combination of diastole and systole imaging

BACKGROUND

The clinical application of coronary MR angiography (MRA) combining diastole and systole imaging has never been described comprehensively in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. We aimed to design an optimal non-contrast coronary MRA scan protocol combining diastolic and systolic imaging and to (1) evaluate its diagnostic performance for detecting significant coronary stenosis; (2) evaluate the feasibility of this protocol to noninvasively measure the coronary distensibility index (CDI).

METHODS

From June 2021 to May 2022, 33 healthy volunteers and 91 suspected CAD patients scheduled for X-ray coronary angiography (CAG) were prospectively enrolled. 3T non-contrast water-fat coronary MRA was carried out twice at diastole and systole. Significant coronary stenosis was defined as a luminal diameter reduction of ≥ 50% using CAG as the reference and was evaluated as follows: (1) by coronary MRA in diastole alone; (2) by coronary MRA in systole alone; (3) by combined coronary MRA in diastole and systole. According to CAG, the patients were divided into significant CAD patients and non-significant CAD patients. The difference in CDI among participants was evaluated.

RESULTS

Combined coronary MRA was completed in 31 volunteers and 76 patients. The per-patient sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of combined coronary MRA were 97.5%, 83.3%, and 90.8%, respectively. Compared with single diastolic mode, combined coronary MRA showed equally high sensitivity but improved specificity on a per-patient basis (83.3% vs. 63.9%, adjusted P = 0.013). The CDI tested by coronary MRA decreased incrementally from healthy volunteers to non-significant and significant CAD patients.

CONCLUSION

Compared with single-phase mode, 3 T non-contrast combined coronary MRA significantly improved specificity and may have potential to be a simple noninvasive method to measure CDI.

Utility of [68Ga]FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG dual-tracer PET/CT in the initial evaluation of gastric cancer

Objectives

We aimed to investigate the role of [68Ga]FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG dual-tracer PET/CT for the initial assessment of gastric cancer and to explore the factors associated with their uptake.

Methods

This study enrolled 62 patients with histopathologically confirmed gastric cancer. We compared the diagnostic performance of [68Ga]FAPI-04, [18F]FDG, and combined dual-tracer PET/CT. The standardized uptake value (SUV) and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) were also measured, and the factors that influence tracer uptake were analyzed.

Results

[68Ga]FAPI-04 PET/CT detected more primary lesions (90.3% vs 77.4%, p = 0.008) and peritoneal metastases (91.7% vs 41.7%, p = 0.031) and demonstrated higher SUVmax and TBR values (p < 0.001) of primary lesions compared to [18F]FDG PET/CT. Dual-tracer PET/CT significantly improved the diagnostic sensitivity for the detection of distant metastases, compared with stand-alone [18F]FDG (97.1% vs 73.5%, p = 0.008) or [68Ga]FAPI-04 (97.1% vs 76.5%, p = 0.016) PET/CT. Subsequently, treatment strategies were changed in nine patients following [68Ga]FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG dual-tracer PET/CT. Nevertheless, [68Ga]FAPI-04 uptake was primarily influenced by the size and invasion depth of the tumor. Both [68Ga]FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG PET/CT showed limited sensitivity for detecting early gastric cancer (EGC) (37.5% vs 25.0%, p > 0.05).

Conclusions

In this initial study, [68Ga]FAPI-04 and [18F]FDG dual-tracer PET/CT were complementary and improved sensitivity for the detection of distant metastases pre-treatment in gastric cancer and could improve treatment stratification in the future. [68Ga]FAPI-04 had limited efficacy in detecting EGC.

Key Points

•[68Ga]FAPI-04 and[18F]FDG dual-tracer PET/CT are complementary to each other for improving diagnostic sensitivity in the initial evaluation of distant metastases from gastric cancer.

•[68Ga]FAPI-04 PET/CT showed limited sensitivity in detecting EGC.

• Need for further validation in a larger multi-centre prospective study.