Katie E Rollins1, Hannah Javanmard-Emamghissi1, Amir Awwad2, Ian A Macdonald3, Kenneth C H Fearon4, Dileep N Lobo5. 1. Gastrointestinal Surgery, Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals and University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK. 2. Sir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre (SPMIC), University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK. 3. School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK. 4. Clinical and Surgical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK. 5. Gastrointestinal Surgery, Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre, National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals and University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK. Electronic address: dileep.lobo@nottingham.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine, from the methodologic standpoint, the effect of the presence or absence of intravenous contrast on body composition variables obtained by analysis of computed tomography (CT) images. METHODS: Triphasic abdominal (noncontrast, arterial phase, and portovenous phase contrast) CT scans from 111 patients were analyzed by two independent assessors at the third lumbar vertebral level using SliceOmatic software (version 5.0, TomoVision, Montreal, Canada). Variables included skeletal muscle index (SMI), fat and fat-free mass (FM and FFM, respectively), and mean skeletal muscle Hounsfield units (SMHU). RESULTS: Mean SMHU was lowest in the noncontrast phase (29.4, standard deviation [SD] 8.9 HU), followed by arterial (32.4, SD 9.3 HU) then portovenous phases (34.9, SD 9.4 HU). The mean skeletal muscle attenuation was significantly different depending on the phase of the scan in which the images were obtained. Calculated FM was significantly lower in both arterial (28.6, SD 8.8 kg, P < 0.0001) and portovenous phase scans (28.5, SD 8.9 kg, P < 0.0001) when compared with noncontrast (29.2, SD 8.9 kg). The mean FFM was not significantly different as measured on noncontrast, arterial, or portovenous phase CT scans (48, SD 11.2; 48.1, SD 9.8; and 48.6, SD 10.2 kg, respectively). No difference was seen in SMI. Interobserver reliability was high. CONCLUSIONS: The definition of myosteatosis should include a standardized phase of CT for analysis and this should be incorporated within its definition. However, as the magnitudes of the differences were relatively small, the effect of the phase of the scan on predicting outcome needs to be determined.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine, from the methodologic standpoint, the effect of the presence or absence of intravenous contrast on body composition variables obtained by analysis of computed tomography (CT) images. METHODS: Triphasic abdominal (noncontrast, arterial phase, and portovenous phase contrast) CT scans from 111 patients were analyzed by two independent assessors at the third lumbar vertebral level using SliceOmatic software (version 5.0, TomoVision, Montreal, Canada). Variables included skeletal muscle index (SMI), fat and fat-free mass (FM and FFM, respectively), and mean skeletal muscle Hounsfield units (SMHU). RESULTS: Mean SMHU was lowest in the noncontrast phase (29.4, standard deviation [SD] 8.9 HU), followed by arterial (32.4, SD 9.3 HU) then portovenous phases (34.9, SD 9.4 HU). The mean skeletal muscle attenuation was significantly different depending on the phase of the scan in which the images were obtained. Calculated FM was significantly lower in both arterial (28.6, SD 8.8 kg, P < 0.0001) and portovenous phase scans (28.5, SD 8.9 kg, P < 0.0001) when compared with noncontrast (29.2, SD 8.9 kg). The mean FFM was not significantly different as measured on noncontrast, arterial, or portovenous phase CT scans (48, SD 11.2; 48.1, SD 9.8; and 48.6, SD 10.2 kg, respectively). No difference was seen in SMI. Interobserver reliability was high. CONCLUSIONS: The definition of myosteatosis should include a standardized phase of CT for analysis and this should be incorporated within its definition. However, as the magnitudes of the differences were relatively small, the effect of the phase of the scan on predicting outcome needs to be determined.
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Carla M Prado; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Erin K Weltzien; Jingjie Xiao; Elizabeth M Cespedes Feliciano; Bette J Caan Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Robin F Gohmann; Batuhan Temiz; Patrick Seitz; Sebastian Gottschling; Christian Lücke; Christian Krieghoff; Christian Blume; Matthias Horn; Matthias Gutberlet Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-10
Authors: Robin F Gohmann; Sebastian Gottschling; Patrick Seitz; Batuhan Temiz; Christian Krieghoff; Christian Lücke; Matthias Horn; Matthias Gutberlet Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-02
Authors: P J Navin; M R Moynagh; E J Atkinson; P Tirumanisetty; N K LeBrasseur; A Kumar; S Khosla; N Takahashi Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 7.643