Jeroen L A van Vugt1, Robert R J Coebergh van den Braak2, Henk J W Schippers2, Kevin M Veen2, Stef Levolger2, Ron W F de Bruin2, Marcel Koek3, Wiro J Niessen4, Jan N M IJzermans2, François E J A Willemsen5. 1. Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.l.a.vanvugt@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Imaging Physics, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Low skeletal muscle mass and density have recently been discovered as prognostic and predictive parameters to guide interventions in various populations, including cancer patients. The gold standard for body composition analysis in cancer patients is computed tomography (CT). To date, the effect of contrast-enhancement on muscle composition measurements has not been established. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of contrast-enhancement on skeletal muscle mass and density measurements on four-phase CT studies. DESIGN: In this observational study, two observers measured cross-sectional skeletal muscle area corrected for patients' height (skeletal muscle index [SMI]) and density (SMD) at the level of the third lumbar vertebra on 50 randomly selected CT examinations with unenhanced, arterial, and portal-venous phases. The levels of agreement between enhancement phases for SMI and SMD were calculated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Mean SMI was 42.5 (±9.9) cm2/m2 on the unenhanced phase, compared with 42.8 (±9.9) and 43.6 (±9.9) cm2/m2 for the arterial and portal-venous phase, respectively (both p < 0.01). Mean SMD was lower for the unenhanced phase (30.9 ± 8.0 Hounsfield units [HU]) compared with the arterial (38.0 ± 9.9 HU) and portal-venous (38.7 ± 9.2 HU) phase (both p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between SMD in the portal-venous and arterial phase (p = 0.161). The ICCs were excellent (≥0.992) for all SMIs and for SMD between the contrast-enhanced phases (0.949). The ICCs for the unenhanced phase compared with the arterial (0.676) and portal-venous (0.665) phase were considered fair to good. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences in SMI were observed between different enhancement phases. However, further work is needed to assess the clinical relevance of these small differences. Contrast-enhancement strongly influenced SMD values. Studies using this measure should therefore use the portal-venous phase of contrast-enhanced CT examinations.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Low skeletal muscle mass and density have recently been discovered as prognostic and predictive parameters to guide interventions in various populations, including cancerpatients. The gold standard for body composition analysis in cancerpatients is computed tomography (CT). To date, the effect of contrast-enhancement on muscle composition measurements has not been established. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of contrast-enhancement on skeletal muscle mass and density measurements on four-phase CT studies. DESIGN: In this observational study, two observers measured cross-sectional skeletal muscle area corrected for patients' height (skeletal muscle index [SMI]) and density (SMD) at the level of the third lumbar vertebra on 50 randomly selected CT examinations with unenhanced, arterial, and portal-venous phases. The levels of agreement between enhancement phases for SMI and SMD were calculated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Mean SMI was 42.5 (±9.9) cm2/m2 on the unenhanced phase, compared with 42.8 (±9.9) and 43.6 (±9.9) cm2/m2 for the arterial and portal-venous phase, respectively (both p < 0.01). Mean SMD was lower for the unenhanced phase (30.9 ± 8.0 Hounsfield units [HU]) compared with the arterial (38.0 ± 9.9 HU) and portal-venous (38.7 ± 9.2 HU) phase (both p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between SMD in the portal-venous and arterial phase (p = 0.161). The ICCs were excellent (≥0.992) for all SMIs and for SMD between the contrast-enhanced phases (0.949). The ICCs for the unenhanced phase compared with the arterial (0.676) and portal-venous (0.665) phase were considered fair to good. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences in SMI were observed between different enhancement phases. However, further work is needed to assess the clinical relevance of these small differences. Contrast-enhancement strongly influenced SMD values. Studies using this measure should therefore use the portal-venous phase of contrast-enhanced CT examinations.
Authors: Ana Babic; Michael H Rosenthal; Gloria M Petersen; Brian M Wolpin; William R Bamlet; Naoki Takahashi; Motokazu Sugimoto; Laura V Danai; Vicente Morales-Oyarvide; Natalia Khalaf; Richard F Dunne; Lauren K Brais; Marisa W Welch; Caitlin L Zellers; Courtney Dennis; Nader Rifai; Carla M Prado; Bette Caan; Tilak K Sundaresan; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Matthew H Kulke; Clary B Clish; Kimmie Ng; Matthew G Vander Heiden Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Michael T Paris; Helena F Furberg; Stacey Petruzella; Oguz Akin; Andreas M Hötker; Marina Mourtzakis Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Hakan Kardas; Maximilian Thormann; Caroline Bär; Jazan Omari; Andreas Wienke; Maciej Pech; Alexey Surov Journal: In Vivo Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Corine de Jong; Najiba Chargi; Gerarda J M Herder; Simone W A van Haarlem; Femke van der Meer; Anne S R van Lindert; Alexandra Ten Heuvel; Jan Brouwer; Pim A de Jong; Lot A Devriese; Alwin D R Huitema; Toine C G Egberts; Remco de Bree; Vera H M Deneer Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 12.063
Authors: Sandra I Bril; Thomas F Pezier; Bernard M Tijink; Luuk M Janssen; Weibel W Braunius; Remco de Bree Journal: Head Neck Date: 2019-01-20 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Willemieke P M Dijksterhuis; Maarten J Pruijt; Stephanie O van der Woude; Remy Klaassen; Sophie A Kurk; Martijn G H van Oijen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 12.910