FAP and PSMA Expression by Immunohistochemistry and PET Imaging in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A...

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a theranostic target for metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). However, castration-resistant PCa (CRPC) may lose PSMA expression after systemic therapy. Fibroblast activation protein (FAP), expressed by carcinoma-associated fibroblasts in various cancer types, including PCa, has the potential to be an alternative target. In this study, we evaluated FAP expression in CRPC to assess its potential, using PSMA as a comparison. Methods: FAP expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry in 116 CRPC tumors: 78 adenocarcinomas, 11 small cell carcinomas, and 27 anaplastic carcinomas. Correlation analysis between manual scoring and automated scoring was performed on 54 whole-slide sections of metastatic CRPC. Paired FAP and PSMA stains were assessed in tissue microarray cores of CRPC (n = 62), consisting of locally advanced CRPC (n = 9) and metastatic CRPC (n = 53). FAP and PSMA positivity was defined by an immunohistochemistry score of at least 10. To explore the correlation of PSMA and FAP inhibitor (FAPi) PET imaging and immunohistochemistry, a preliminary analysis of 4 patients included in a [⁶⁸Ga]-FAPi-46 imaging trial (NCT04457232) was conducted. Results: Manual and automated scoring of FAP yielded results with strong correlations. Overall, FAP expression in CRPC was notably lower than PSMA expression (median immunoscores, 14 vs. 72; P < 0.001). Different histologic subtypes of CRPC demonstrated distinct levels of PSMA expression, whereas their FAP expression levels were comparable. Among the 19 PSMA-negative tumors, 11 (58%) exhibited FAP positivity. FAP expression levels in lymph node metastases were significantly lower than those in nonnodal metastases (P = 0.021). Liver metastases showed significant enrichment of tumors with strong FAP expression compared with nonliver lesions (P = 0.016). In the 4 clinical trial patients, the biopsied metastatic lesions showed lower uptake on FAPi PET than on PSMA PET (median SUV_max, 9.6 vs. 14.5), consistent with FAP expression that was lower than PSMA expression in the corresponding tumor biopsy samples (median immunoscores, 30 vs. 160). Conclusion: Because of the low FAP expression levels in CRPC, the utility of FAPi PET imaging may be limited. Although FAPi PET imaging may be further tested in PSMA-negative CRPC, such as small cell carcinoma, other molecular imaging modalities should be evaluated as alternative choices.