G E Manios1, M Mazonakis1, C Voulgaris2, A Karantanas2, J Damilakis3. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. 2. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. 3. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. damilaki@med.uoc.gr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To deploy and evaluate a stereological point-counting technique on abdominal CT for the estimation of visceral (VAF) and subcutaneous abdominal fat (SAF) volumes. METHODS: Stereological volume estimations based on point counting and systematic sampling were performed on images from 14 consecutive patients who had undergone abdominal CT. For the optimization of the method, five sampling intensities in combination with 100 and 200 points were tested. The optimum stereological measurements were compared with VAF and SAF volumes derived by the standard technique of manual planimetry on the same scans. RESULTS: Optimization analysis showed that the selection of 200 points along with the sampling intensity 1/8 provided efficient volume estimations in less than 4 min for VAF and SAF together. The optimized stereology showed strong correlation with planimetry (VAF: r = 0.98; SAF: r = 0.98). No statistical differences were found between the two methods (VAF: P = 0.81; SAF: P = 0.83). The 95% limits of agreement were also acceptable (VAF: -16.5%, 16.1%; SAF: -10.8%, 10.7%) and the repeatability of stereology was good (VAF: CV = 4.5%, SAF: CV = 3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Stereology may be successfully applied to CT images for the efficient estimation of abdominal fat volume and may constitute a good alternative to the conventional planimetric technique. KEY POINTS: Abdominal obesity is associated with increased risk of disease and mortality. Stereology may quantify visceral and subcutaneous abdominal fat accurately and consistently. The application of stereology to estimating abdominal volume fat reduces processing time. Stereology is an efficient alternative method for estimating abdominal fat volume.
OBJECTIVES: To deploy and evaluate a stereological point-counting technique on abdominal CT for the estimation of visceral (VAF) and subcutaneous abdominal fat (SAF) volumes. METHODS: Stereological volume estimations based on point counting and systematic sampling were performed on images from 14 consecutive patients who had undergone abdominal CT. For the optimization of the method, five sampling intensities in combination with 100 and 200 points were tested. The optimum stereological measurements were compared with VAF and SAF volumes derived by the standard technique of manual planimetry on the same scans. RESULTS: Optimization analysis showed that the selection of 200 points along with the sampling intensity 1/8 provided efficient volume estimations in less than 4 min for VAF and SAF together. The optimized stereology showed strong correlation with planimetry (VAF: r = 0.98; SAF: r = 0.98). No statistical differences were found between the two methods (VAF: P = 0.81; SAF: P = 0.83). The 95% limits of agreement were also acceptable (VAF: -16.5%, 16.1%; SAF: -10.8%, 10.7%) and the repeatability of stereology was good (VAF: CV = 4.5%, SAF: CV = 3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Stereology may be successfully applied to CT images for the efficient estimation of abdominal fat volume and may constitute a good alternative to the conventional planimetric technique. KEY POINTS: Abdominal obesity is associated with increased risk of disease and mortality. Stereology may quantify visceral and subcutaneous abdominal fat accurately and consistently. The application of stereology to estimating abdominal volume fat reduces processing time. Stereology is an efficient alternative method for estimating abdominal fat volume.
Authors: Q Y Gong; J Phoenix; G J Kemp; M García-Fiñana; S P Frostick; D A Brodie; R H Edwards; G H Whitehouse; N Roberts Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kathryn A Britton; Joseph M Massaro; Joanne M Murabito; Bernard E Kreger; Udo Hoffmann; Caroline S Fox Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Anna Peeters; Jan J Barendregt; Frans Willekens; Johan P Mackenbach; Abdullah Al Mamun; Luc Bonneux Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Connie Yip; Vicky Goh; Andrew Davies; James Gossage; Rosalind Mitchell-Hay; Orla Hynes; Nick Maisey; Paul Ross; Andrew Gaya; David B Landau; Gary J Cook; Nyree Griffin; Robert Mason Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Georgios Bontzos; Michael Mazonakis; Efrosini Papadaki; Thomas G Maris; Styliani Blazaki; Eleni E Drakonaki; Efstathios T Detorakis Journal: Natl J Maxillofac Surg Date: 2020-06-18