Revista Cultura Científica - web logo
Submit Your Research
  • Research Article

uPAR-Targeted Imaging of Tumor Invasion, Prognosis, and Theranostics: A Narrative Review

Imrana Tanvir1, Hammad Nasir2, Tuba Binte Qasim3, Samah Said Elbasateeny1, Sawsan Sabiq4, Nasir Saleem5, Fehmida Bibi6, Muhammad Imran Naseer7
1Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Rabigh, Saudi Arabia
2Doctor13 (Doctor13.com), Online Medical Education Platform
3Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford, United Kingdom
4King Abdullah Medical Complex, Ministry of Health, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
5Department of Pathology, International Medical Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
6Special Infectious Agents Unit–BSL3, King Fahd Medical Research Centre, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
7Institute of Genomic Medicine Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.70517/revcc2624200
Published: 07/11/2026
: Imrana Tanvir, Hammad Nasir, Tuba Binte Qasim, Samah Said Elbasateeny, Sawsan Sabiq, Nasir Saleem, Fehmida Bibi, Muhammad Imran Naseer. uPAR-Targeted Imaging of Tumor Invasion, Prognosis, and Theranostics: A Narrative Review. Revista Cultura Científica, 2026 Issue 24. pg. 2491-2505.

Abstract

The urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR, CD87) connects extracellular proteolysis with adhesion, migration, and signaling, providing a biological rationale for imaging tumor-associated invasion. This narrative review examines receptor biology, radiopharmaceutical development, clinical PET evidence, targeted MRI, fluorescence-guided surgery, and therapeutic translation. Experimental studies and early clinical investigations support the technical feasibility of visualizing uPAR with peptide-based probes, particularly AE105 derivatives labeled with copper-64 or gallium-68. Prospective cohorts have reported associations between uptake and prostate cancer grade, glioma outcomes, and relapse risk in head and neck cancer. These findings remain specific to the patient population, tracer, measurement, and endpoint; they do not establish universal SUVmax thresholds. Receptor expression in stromal and inflammatory cells also limits interpretation of uptake as an exclusively malignant-cell signal. The review distinguishes uPAR PET from FDG imaging, circulating soluble uPAR assays, and tissue immunohistochemistry. Clinical findings are considered alongside their limitations, including small cohorts, optimized cutoffs, wide confidence intervals, and incomplete external validation. Optical imaging with FG001 has demonstrated the visualization of tumors in human patients, whereas the effect of fluorescence-guided decisions on surgical margins and outcomes requires further evaluation. Albumin-binding radiopeptides, cyclic ligands, and targeted nanoparticles remain important translational approaches. Sponsor-reported early therapeutic observations are identified separately from peer-reviewed efficacy evidence. Overall, uPAR-directed imaging is a promising addition to molecular oncology, but its clinical value depends on standardized measurements and prospective studies demonstrating benefit for defined diagnostic, prognostic, or treatment decisions.

Keywords: uPAR; Molecular Imaging; PET/CT; AE105; Tumor Invasion; Prognosis; Fluorescence-Guided Surgery; Theranostics

Abstract

The urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR, CD87) connects extracellular proteolysis with adhesion, migration, and signaling, providing a biological rationale for imaging tumor-associated invasion. This narrative review examines receptor biology, radiopharmaceutical development, clinical PET evidence, targeted MRI, fluorescence-guided surgery, and therapeutic translation. Experimental studies and early clinical investigations support the technical feasibility of visualizing uPAR with peptide-based probes, particularly AE105 derivatives labeled with copper-64 or gallium-68. Prospective cohorts have reported associations between uptake and prostate cancer grade, glioma outcomes, and relapse risk in head and neck cancer. These findings remain specific to the patient population, tracer, measurement, and endpoint; they do not establish universal SUVmax thresholds. Receptor expression in stromal and inflammatory cells also limits interpretation of uptake as an exclusively malignant-cell signal. The review distinguishes uPAR PET from FDG imaging, circulating soluble uPAR assays, and tissue immunohistochemistry. Clinical findings are considered alongside their limitations, including small cohorts, optimized cutoffs, wide confidence intervals, and incomplete external validation. Optical imaging with FG001 has demonstrated the visualization of tumors in human patients, whereas the effect of fluorescence-guided decisions on surgical margins and outcomes requires further evaluation. Albumin-binding radiopeptides, cyclic ligands, and targeted nanoparticles remain important translational approaches. Sponsor-reported early therapeutic observations are identified separately from peer-reviewed efficacy evidence. Overall, uPAR-directed imaging is a promising addition to molecular oncology, but its clinical value depends on standardized measurements and prospective studies demonstrating benefit for defined diagnostic, prognostic, or treatment decisions.

Keywords: uPAR; Molecular Imaging; PET/CT; AE105; Tumor Invasion; Prognosis; Fluorescence-Guided Surgery; Theranostics

References

  1. Skovgaard D, Persson M, Kjaer A. PET imaging of urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) in prostate cancer: current status and future perspectives. Clin Transl Imaging. 2016;4(6):457-465. doi:10.1007/s40336-016-0197-4.

  2. Blasi F, Carmeliet P. uPAR: a versatile signalling orchestrator. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 2002;3(12):932-943. doi:10.1038/nrm977.

  3. Mazar AP. Urokinase plasminogen activator receptor choreographs multiple ligand interactions: implications for tumor progression and therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(18):5649-5655. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4863.

  4. MacFarlane RG, Pilling J. Fibrinolytic activity of normal urine. Nature. 1947;159:779. doi:10.1038/159779a0.

  5. Andreasen PA, Kjøller L, Christensen L, Duffy MJ. The urokinase-type plasminogen activator system in cancer metastasis: A review. International Journal of Cancer. 1997;72(1):1-22. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19970703)72:1<1::aid-ijc1>3.0.co;2-z.

  6. Wang L, Lin X, Sun P. uPAR, beyond regulating physiological functions, has orchestrated roles in cancer (Review). International Journal of Oncology. 2022;61(6):151. doi:10.3892/ijo.2022.5441.

  7. Iftikhar A, Mahmood N, Rabbani SA. The urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) as a mediator of physiological and pathological processes: potential therapeutic strategies. Cancers (Basel). 2025;17(20):3309. doi:10.3390/cancers17203309.

  8. Hamada M, Varkoly KS, Riyadh O, Beladi R, Munuswamy-Ramanujam G, Rawls A, et al. Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator Receptor (uPAR) in Inflammation and Disease: A Unique Inflammatory Pathway Activator. Biomedicines. 2024;12(6):1167. doi:10.3390/biomedicines12061167.

  9. Persson M, Skovgaard D, Brandt-Larsen M, Christensen C, Madsen J, Nielsen CH, et al. First-in-human uPAR PET: Imaging of Cancer Aggressiveness. Theranostics. 2015;5(12):1303-1316. doi:10.7150/thno.12956.

  10. Skovgaard D, Persson M, Brandt-Larsen M, Christensen C, Madsen J, Klausen TL, et al. Safety, Dosimetry, and Tumor Detection Ability of 68Ga-NOTA-AE105: First-in-Human Study of a Novel Radioligand for uPAR PET Imaging. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2017;58(3):379-386. doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.178970.

  11. Skovgaard D, Persson M, Kjaer A. Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor–PET with 68 Ga-NOTA-AE105. PET Clinics. 2017;12(3):311-319. doi:10.1016/j.cpet.2017.02.003.

  12. Huai Q, Mazar AP, Kuo A, Parry GC, Shaw DE, Callahan J, et al. Structure of Human Urokinase Plasminogen Activator in Complex with Its Receptor. Science. 2006;311(5761):656-659. doi:10.1126/science.1121143.

  13. Leth JM, Ploug M. Targeting the urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) in human diseases with a view to non-invasive imaging and therapeutic intervention. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:732015. doi:10.3389/fcell.2021.732015.

  14. Li D, Liu S, Shan H, Conti P, Li Z. Urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) targeted nuclear imaging and radionuclide therapy. Theranostics. 2013;3(7):507-515. doi:10.7150/thno.5557.

  15. Persson M, Madsen J, Østergaard S, Jensen MM, Jørgensen JT, Juhl K, et al. Quantitative PET of Human Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator Receptor with 64Cu-DOTA-AE105: Implications for Visualizing Cancer Invasion. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2012;53(1):138-145. doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.083386.

  16. Wei Y, Lukashev M, Simon DI, Bodary SC, Rosenberg S, Doyle MV, et al. Regulation of Integrin Function by the Urokinase Receptor. Science. 1996;273(5281):1551-1555. doi:10.1126/science.273.5281.1551.

  17. Simon DI, Wei Y, Zhang L, et al. Identification of a urokinase receptor-integrin interaction site. Promiscuous regulator of integrin function. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(14):10228-10234. doi:10.1074/jbc.275.14.10228.

  18. Aguirre-Ghiso JA, Kovalski K, Ossowski L. Tumor Dormancy Induced by Downregulation of Urokinase Receptor in Human Carcinoma Involves Integrin and MAPK Signaling. The Journal of Cell Biology. 1999;147(1):89-104. doi:10.1083/jcb.147.1.89.

  19. Liu D, Aguirre-Ghiso JA, Estrada Y, Ossowski L. EGFR is a transducer of the urokinase receptor initiated signal that is required for in vivo growth of a human carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2002;1(5):445-457. doi:10.1016/s1535-6108(02)00072-7.

  20. Gonias SL, Hu J. Urokinase receptor and resistance to targeted anticancer agents. Front Pharmacol. 2015;6:154. doi:10.3389/fphar.2015.00154.

  21. Wei Y, Waltz DA, Rao N, Drummond RJ, Rosenberg S, Chapman HA. Identification of the urokinase receptor as an adhesion receptor for vitronectin. J Biol Chem. 1994;269(51):32380-32388. doi:10.1016/S0021-9258(18)31646-6.

  22. Alfano D, Franco P, Stoppelli MP. Modulation of cellular function by the urokinase receptor signalling: a mechanistic view. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2022;10:818616. doi:10.3389/fcell.2022.818616.

  23. Smith HW, Marshall CJ. Regulation of cell signalling by uPAR. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 2010;11(1):23-36. doi:10.1038/nrm2821.

  24. Qian BZ, Pollard JW. Macrophage Diversity Enhances Tumor Progression and Metastasis. Cell. 2010;141(1):39-51. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.014.

  25. Mantovani A, Locati M. Tumor-Associated Macrophages as a Paradigm of Macrophage Plasticity, Diversity, and Polarization: Lessons and Open Questions. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2013;33(7):1478-1483. doi:10.1161/atvbaha.113.300168.

  26. Vinay DS, Ryan EP, Pawelec G, Talib WH, Stagg J, Elkord E, et al. Immune evasion in cancer: mechanistic basis and therapeutic strategies. Semin Cancer Biol. 2015;35(Suppl):S185–S198. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.03.004.

  27. Thiery JP. Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions in tumour progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2(6):442–454. doi:10.1038/nrc822.

  28. Jo M, Eastman BM, Webb DL, Stoletov K, Klemke R, Gonias SL. Cell signaling by urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor induces stem cell-like properties in breast cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2010;70(21):8948–8958. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-1936.

  29. Langkilde A, Hansen TW, Ladelund S, Linneberg A, Andersen O, Haugaard SB, et al. Increased plasma soluble uPAR level is a risk marker of respiratory cancer in initially cancer-free individuals. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20(4):609–618. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1009.

  30. Rasmussen LJH, Schultz M, Gaardsting A, Ladelund S, Garred P, Iversen K, et al. Inflammatory biomarkers and cancer: CRP and suPAR as markers of incident cancer in patients with serious nonspecific symptoms and signs of cancer. International Journal of Cancer. 2017;141(1):191-199. doi:10.1002/ijc.30732.

  31. Goodson RJ, Doyle MV, Kaufman SE, Rosenberg S. High-affinity urokinase receptor antagonists identified with bacteriophage peptide display. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1994;91(15):7129-7133. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.7129.

  32. Persson M, El Ali HH, Binderup T, Pfeifer A, Madsen J, Rasmussen P, et al. Dosimetry of 64Cu-DOTA-AE105, a PET tracer for uPAR imaging. Nuclear Medicine and Biology. 2014;41(3):290-295. doi:10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2013.12.007.

  33. Persson M, Liu H, Madsen J, Cheng Z, Kjaer A. First 18F-labeled ligand for PET imaging of uPAR: in vivo studies in human prostate cancer xenografts. Nucl Med Biol. 2013;40(5):618–624. doi:10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2013.03.001.

  34. Wang X, Zhang X, Zhang S, Zhang L, Shen J, Zhang Y, et al. Development of cyclic peptide-based radiotracers for uPAR. ChemMedChem. 2025;20(10):e202500061. doi:10.1002/cmdc.202500061.

  35. Beyer D, Vaccarin C, Schmid JV, Deberle LM, Deupi X, Schibli R, Müller C. Design and preclinical evaluation of novel uPAR-targeting radiopeptides modified with an albumin-binding entity. Mol Pharm. 2025;22(6):3242-3254. doi:10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.5c00135.

  36. Vaccarin C, Beyer D, Schmid JV, Klein B, Jegathasan J, Behera S, et al. Optimizing uPAR-targeting radiopeptides for improved tissue distribution: progress towards radionuclide therapy. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2026;53(4):2502-2517. doi:10.1007/s00259-025-07602-7.

  37. Yang L, Peng XH, Wang YA, Wang X, Cao Z, Ni C, et al. Receptor-Targeted Nanoparticles for In vivo Imaging of Breast Cancer. Clinical Cancer Research. 2009;15(14):4722-4732. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-3289.

  38. Hansen L, Larsen EKU, Nielsen EH, Iversen F, Liu Z, Thomsen K, et al. Targeting of peptide conjugated magnetic nanoparticles to urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) expressing cells. Nanoscale. 2013;5(17):8192–8201. doi:10.1039/c3nr32922d.

  39. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):328-354. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.

  40. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-822. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32401-1.

  41. Fosbøl MØ, Kurbegovic S, Johannesen HH, Røder MA, Hansen AE, Mortensen J, et al. Urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) PET/MRI of prostate cancer for noninvasive evaluation of aggressiveness: comparison with Gleason score in a prospective phase 2 clinical trial. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(3):354–359. doi:10.2967/jnumed.120.248120.

  42. Parker C, Nilsson S, Heinrich D, Helle SI, O’Sullivan JM, Fosså SD, et al. Alpha Emitter Radium-223 and Survival in Metastatic Prostate Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;369(3):213-223. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1213755.

  43. Fosbøl MØ, Mortensen J, Petersen PM, Loft A, Madsen J, Kjaer A. uPAR PET/CT for Prognostication and Response Assessment in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radium-223 Therapy: A Prospective Phase II Study. Diagnostics. 2021;11(6):1087. doi:10.3390/diagnostics11061087.

  44. Giese A, Bjerkvig R, Berens ME, Westphal M. Cost of Migration: Invasion of Malignant Gliomas and Implications for Treatment. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003;21(8):1624-1636. doi:10.1200/jco.2003.05.063.

  45. Persson M, Nedergaard MK, Brandt-Larsen M, et al. Urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor as a potential PET biomarker in glioblastoma. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(2):272-278. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.161703.

  46. Azam A, Kurbegovic S, Carlsen EA, Andersen TL, Larsen VA, Law I, et al. Prospective phase II trial of [68Ga]Ga-NOTA-AE105 uPAR-PET/MRI in patients with primary gliomas: Prognostic value and Implications for uPAR-targeted Radionuclide Therapy. EJNMMI Research. 2024;14(1):100. doi:10.1186/s13550-024-01164-9.

  47. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1963-1972. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541.

  48. Risør LM, Clausen MM, Ujmajuridze Z, Farhadi M, Andersen KF, Loft A, et al. Prognostic Value of Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator Receptor PET/CT in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinomas and Comparison with 18 F-FDG PET/CT: A Single-Center Prospective Study. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2022;63(8):1169-1176. doi:10.2967/jnumed.121.262866.

  49. Lawaetz M, Christensen A, Juhl K, Lelkaitis G, Karnov K, Carlsen EA, Charabi BW, Loft A, Czyzewska D, von Buchwald C, Kjaer A. Diagnostic value of preoperative uPAR-PET/CT in regional lymph node staging of oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective phase II trial. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(21):3303. doi:10.3390/diagnostics13213303.

  50. Carlsen EA, Loft M, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Langer SW, Knigge U, et al. Prospective Phase II Trial of Prognostication by 68Ga-NOTA-AE105 uPAR PET in Patients with Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Implications for uPAR-Targeted Therapy. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2022;63(9):1371-1377. doi:10.2967/jnumed.121.263177.

  51. Fosbøl MØ, Carlsen EA, Brandt-Larsen M, Christensen C, Madsen J, Loft A, et al. Phase II study of uPAR-PET/CT for staging of primary breast cancer in comparison with ultrasound and fine needle biopsies. Sci Rep. 2024;14:26183. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-77072-8.

  52. Soldath P, Clausen MM, Loft A, Colville-Ebeling B, Langer SW, Knigge U, et al. Prognostic value of 68Ga-NOTA-AE105 uPAR PET/CT in resected non-small cell lung cancer: a single-center prospective study. J Nucl Med. Published online 22 October 2026. doi:10.2967/jnumed.126.272541.

  53. Boonstra MC, van Driel PBAA, van Willigen DM, Stammes MA, Prevoo HAJM, Tummers QRJG, et al. uPAR-targeted multimodal tracer for pre- and intraoperative imaging in cancer surgery. Oncotarget. 2015;6(16):14260-14273. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.3680.

  54. Liebig C, Ayala G, Wilks JA, Berger DH, Albo D. Perineural invasion in cancer: a review of the literature. Cancer. 2009;115(15):3379-3391. doi:10.1002/cncr.24396.

  55. Bapat AA, Hostetter G, Von Hoff DD, Han H. Perineural invasion and associated pain in pancreatic cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2011;11(10):695-707. doi:10.1038/nrc3131.

  56. Knijn N, Mogk SC, Teerenstra S, Simmer F, Nagtegaal ID. Perineural Invasion Is a Strong Prognostic Factor in Colorectal Cancer. American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2016;40(1):103-112. doi:10.1097/pas.0000000000000518.

  57. Juhl K, Christensen A, Rubek N, Karnov KKS, von Buchwald C, Kjaer A. Improved surgical resection of metastatic pancreatic cancer using uPAR targeted in vivo fluorescent guidance: comparison with traditional white light surgery. Oncotarget. 2019;10(59):6308-6316. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.27220.

  58. Christensen A, Juhl K, Persson M, Charabi BW, Mortensen J, Kiss K, et al. uPAR-targeted optical near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging and PET for image-guided surgery in head and neck cancer: proof-of-concept in orthotopic xenograft model. Oncotarget. 2017;8(9):15407–15419. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.14282.

  59. Andersen AO, Christensen A, Straede K, Lawaetz M, Hahn CH, Rubek N, Wessel I, Lelkaitis G, Kiss K, Paaske N, Poulsen A, von Buchwald C, Kjaer A. Optical molecular imaging in oral- and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma using a novel uPAR-targeting near-infrared imaging agent FG001 (ICG-Glu-Glu-AE105): an explorative phase II clinical trial. Theranostics. 2025;15(1):52-67. doi:10.7150/thno.100042.

  60. Herrmann K, Schwaiger M, Lewis JS, Solomon SB, McNeil BJ, Baumann M, et al. Radiotheranostics: a roadmap for future development. The Lancet Oncology. 2020;21(3):e146-e156. doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30821-6.

  61. Strosberg J, El-Haddad G, Wolin E, Hendifar A, Yao J, Chasen B, et al. Phase 3 Trial of 177 Lu-Dotatate for Midgut Neuroendocrine Tumors. New England Journal of Medicine. 2017;376(2):125-135. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1607427.

  62. Curasight A/S. Curasight announces encouraging preliminary data from phase 1 trial evaluating first-in-class radiopharmaceutical uTREAT in high-grade gliomas [press release]. 12 January 2026. Curasight press release (12 January 2026)

  63. Mahmood N, Arakelian A, Khan HA, Tanvir I, Mazar AP, Rabbani SA. uPAR antibody (huATN-658) and Zometa reduce breast cancer growth and skeletal lesions. Bone Research. 2020;8(1):18. doi:10.1038/s41413-020-0094-3.

  64. Mazar AP, Ahn RW, O’Halloran TV. Development of novel therapeutics targeting the urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) and their translation toward the clinic. Curr Pharm Des. 2011;17(19):1970–1978. doi:10.2174/138161211796718152.

  65. Hosny A, Parmar C, Quackenbush J, Schwartz LH, Aerts HJWL. Artificial intelligence in radiology. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2018;18(8):500-510. doi:10.1038/s41568-018-0016-5.

  66. Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM, et al. Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(12):749-762. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141.

  67. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H. Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data. Radiology. 2016;278(2):563-577. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151169.

Imrana Tanvir
Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Rabigh, Saudi Arabia
ozafar@kau.edu.sa
Hammad Nasir
Doctor13 (Doctor13.com), Online Medical Education Platform
Tuba Binte Qasim
Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford, United Kingdom
Samah Said Elbasateeny
Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Rabigh, Saudi Arabia
Sawsan Sabiq
King Abdullah Medical Complex, Ministry of Health, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Nasir Saleem
Department of Pathology, International Medical Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Fehmida Bibi
Special Infectious Agents Unit–BSL3, King Fahd Medical Research Centre, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
Muhammad Imran Naseer
Institute of Genomic Medicine Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia

How to cite:

Imrana Tanvir, Hammad Nasir, Tuba Binte Qasim, Samah Said Elbasateeny, Sawsan Sabiq, Nasir Saleem, Fehmida Bibi, Muhammad Imran Naseer. uPAR-Targeted Imaging of Tumor Invasion, Prognosis, and Theranostics: A Narrative Review. Revista Cultura Científica, 2026 Issue 24. pg. 2491-2505.

Publication History

  • Received: 19/08/2026
  • Accepted: 29/10/2026
  • Published: 07/11/2026
Copyright © 2026, Imrana Tanvir, Hammad Nasir, Tuba Binte Qasim, Samah Said Elbasateeny, Sawsan Sabiq, Nasir Saleem, Fehmida Bibi, Muhammad Imran Naseer. Published by Revista Cultura Científica. This article is published as open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Browse Advance Search