Chemokine Receptor-4 Targeted PET/CT Imaging with ⁶⁸Ga-Pentixafor in Head and Neck Cancer—A Comparison with ¹⁸F-FDG and CXCR4 Immunohistochemistry

Background: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is common, and its incidence is increasing, particularly in HIV-infected individuals who present with more aggressive disease. Despite aggressive treatment, the prognosis remains poor because of resistance to chemoradiation therapy. So far, studies report very low [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-Pentixafor avidity in HNSCC. This study investigated the diagnostic performance of CXCR4-directed imaging of carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, and nasopharynx with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) using the radiolabelled chemokine ligand [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-Pentixafor and explored its ability to quantify CXCR4 expression in vivo. Materials and Methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study, twenty-three (23) patients aged 52.9 ± 10.4 (19.6), 17 males and 6 females with primarily diagnosed (n = 17) or pre-treated (n = 6) SCC of the oral cavity (OCSCC, n = 11), oropharynx (OPSCC, n = 9), nasopharynx (NPSCC, n = 2) and unknown primary (n = 1) underwent imaging with [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-Pentixafor-PET/CT. In 16/23 patients 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([¹⁸F]F-FDG) served as a standard reference. All lesions were visually rated using a 5-point Likert scale. For both tracers, maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) and the total lesion uptake (TLU) were recorded and compared using the Wilcox-signed rank test. In addition, the tumor-to-background ratios were derived using the liver (TLR), spleen (TSR), and posterior cervical muscles (TMR) as background. The relationships between the SUVs of the two tracers were assessed using the Spearman correlation. CXCR4 immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining was correlated with ⁶⁸Ga-Pentixafor-PET/CT in 21/23 patients. Results: Ninety-one percent (21/23) of tumors were visually detected on [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-Pentixafor; however, [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-Pentixafor was less intense compared with [¹⁸F]F-FDG-PET. Quantitative analysis showed higher [¹⁸F]F-FDG SUVmax in comparison with [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-Pentixafor (16 ± 6.7 vs. 5.8 ± 2.6 g/mL, p = 0.011) and SUVmean (9.3 ± 4.1 vs. 3± 1.6 g/mL, p < 0.001) and TBR 4.9 ± 2.3 vs. 2.36 ± 1.4 p = 0.014. Nasopharyngeal cancer demonstrated more intense tracer accumulation than oropharyngeal and oral cavity malignancies. CXCR4 IHC staining was positive in 15/21 patients, and there was a statistically significant correlation between IHC staining and [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-Pentixafor SUVmean r = 0.5 p = 0.027, and performance status r = 0.83 p = 0.0104. Conclusions: In conclusion, although [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-Pentixafor cannot replace [¹⁸F]F-FDG as a diagnostic tool because of its lower avidity, the correlation between CXCR4 targeted ⁶⁸Ga-Pentixafor PET imaging and CXCR4 IHC staining indicates the potential of ⁶⁸Ga-Pentixafor as an effective tool for selecting patients who may benefit from therapies targeting CXCR4. In addition, [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-Pentixafor has no physiological brown fat uptake, which often obscures cervical lesions on [¹⁸F]F-FDG PET/CT imaging.