Georg Fuchs1,2, Yves R Chretien2, Julia Mario2, Synho Do2, Matthias Eikermann3,4, Bob Liu2, Kai Yang2, Florian J Fintelmann5. 1. Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 4. Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians (HMFP), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. fintelmann@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of IV contrast, tube current and slice thickness on skeletal muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and density (SMD) on routine CT. METHODS: CSA and SMD were computed on 216 axial CT images obtained at the L3 level in 72 patients with variations in IV contrast, slice thickness and tube current. Intra-patient mean difference (MD), 95 % CI and limits of agreement were calculated using the Bland-Altman approach. Inter- and intra-analyst agreement was evaluated. RESULTS: IV contrast significantly increased CSA by 1.88 % (MD 2.33 cm2; 95 % CI 1.76-2.89) and SMD by 5.99 % (p<0.0001). Five mm slice thickness significantly increased mean CSA by 1.11 % compared to 2 mm images (1.32 cm2; 0.78-1.85) and significantly decreased SMD by 11.64 % (p<0.0001). Low tube current significantly decreased mean CSA by 4.79 % (6.44 cm2; 3.78-9.10) and significantly increased SMD by 46.46 % (p<0.0001). Inter- and intra-analyst agreement was excellent. CONCLUSIONS: IV contrast, slice thickness and tube current significantly affect CSA and SMD. Investigators designing and analysing clinical trials using CT for body composition analysis should report CT acquisition parameters and consider the effect of slice thickness, IV contrast and tube current on myometric data. KEY POINTS: • Intravenous contrast, slice thickness and tube current significantly affect myometric data. • Image acquisition parameter variations may obscure intrapatient muscle differences on serial measurements. • Investigators using CT for body composition analysis should report CT acquisition parameters.
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of IV contrast, tube current and slice thickness on skeletal muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and density (SMD) on routine CT. METHODS:CSA and SMD were computed on 216 axial CT images obtained at the L3 level in 72 patients with variations in IV contrast, slice thickness and tube current. Intra-patient mean difference (MD), 95 % CI and limits of agreement were calculated using the Bland-Altman approach. Inter- and intra-analyst agreement was evaluated. RESULTS: IV contrast significantly increased CSA by 1.88 % (MD 2.33 cm2; 95 % CI 1.76-2.89) and SMD by 5.99 % (p<0.0001). Five mm slice thickness significantly increased mean CSA by 1.11 % compared to 2 mm images (1.32 cm2; 0.78-1.85) and significantly decreased SMD by 11.64 % (p<0.0001). Low tube current significantly decreased mean CSA by 4.79 % (6.44 cm2; 3.78-9.10) and significantly increased SMD by 46.46 % (p<0.0001). Inter- and intra-analyst agreement was excellent. CONCLUSIONS: IV contrast, slice thickness and tube current significantly affect CSA and SMD. Investigators designing and analysing clinical trials using CT for body composition analysis should report CT acquisition parameters and consider the effect of slice thickness, IV contrast and tube current on myometric data. KEY POINTS: • Intravenous contrast, slice thickness and tube current significantly affect myometric data. • Image acquisition parameter variations may obscure intrapatient muscle differences on serial measurements. • Investigators using CT for body composition analysis should report CT acquisition parameters.
Authors: Julien G Cohen; Jin Mo Goo; Roh-Eul Yoo; Su Bin Park; Bram van Ginneken; Gilbert R Ferretti; Chang Hyun Lee; Chang Min Park Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Robert D Boutin; Justin M Kaptuch; Cyrus P Bateni; James S Chalfant; Lawrence Yao Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Matthew D Gilman; Jiang Hsieh; Homer H Pien; Subba R Digumarthy; Jo-Anne O Shepard Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jiang Hsieh; Paul E Licato; Synho Do; Homer H Pien; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; Amy P Abernethy; David C Currow; John Friend; Elizabeth M Duus; Ying Yan; Kenneth C Fearon Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Lesley L Moisey; Marina Mourtzakis; Bryan A Cotton; Tahira Premji; Daren K Heyland; Charles E Wade; Eileen Bulger; Rosemary A Kozar Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Emmanuel Salinas-Miranda; Dominik Deniffel; Xin Dong; Gerard M Healy; Farzad Khalvati; Grainne M O'Kane; Jennifer Knox; Oliver F Bathe; Vickie E Baracos; Steven Gallinger; Masoom A Haider Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Brian A Derstine; Sven A Holcombe; Brian E Ross; Nicholas C Wang; Grace L Su; Stewart C Wang Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Brian A Derstine; Sven A Holcombe; Brian E Ross; Nicholas C Wang; Grace L Su; Stewart C Wang Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Dong Wook Kim; Jiyeon Ha; Yousun Ko; Kyung Won Kim; Taeyong Park; Jeongjin Lee; Myung Won You; Kwon Ha Yoon; Ji Yong Park; Young Jin Kee; Hong Kyu Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 3.500