Michael T Paris1, Helena F Furberg2, Stacey Petruzella2, Oguz Akin3, Andreas M Hötker3, Marina Mourtzakis1. 1. Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) scans are being utilized to examine the influence of skeletal muscle and visceral adipose quantity and quality on health-related outcomes in clinical populations. However, little is known about the influence of contrast administration on these parameters. METHODS: Precontrast, arterial, and 3-minute postcontrast CT images of 45 patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma were downloaded from The Cancer Imaging Archive and retrospectively analyzed for visceral adipose cross-sectional area (CSA) and density, and muscle CSA and density at the third lumbar vertebrae. Low muscle CSA index was defined as ≤38.9 cm2 /m2 for women and ≤55.4 cm2 /m2 for men. Low muscle density was defined as <41 Hounsfield units (HU) for body mass index (BMI) <24.9 kg/m2 and <33 HU for BMI ≥25.0 kg/m2 . RESULTS: In both the arterial and 3-minute phases, contrast administration decreased visceral adipose CSA (-20.9 and -20.9 cm2 ; P < .001) and increased visceral adipose density (4.8 and 5.8 HU; P < .001), relative to precontrast images. Muscle CSA index marginally increased in the arterial (0.6 cm2 /m2 ; P = .007) and 3-minute phases (0.8 cm2 /m2 ; P < .001). This likely represents clinically insignificant changes because it does not alter the identification of low muscle CSA (44.4% vs 42.2%; P = 1.00). Skeletal muscle density increased in the arterial (6.4 HU; P < .001) and 3-minute phases (8.7 HU; P < .001), which altered the identification of low muscle density (6.7% vs 31.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Future analyses should consider the phase of contrast during CT imaging because it may alter the interpretations of several parameters.
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) scans are being utilized to examine the influence of skeletal muscle and visceral adipose quantity and quality on health-related outcomes in clinical populations. However, little is known about the influence of contrast administration on these parameters. METHODS: Precontrast, arterial, and 3-minute postcontrast CT images of 45 patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma were downloaded from The Cancer Imaging Archive and retrospectively analyzed for visceral adipose cross-sectional area (CSA) and density, and muscle CSA and density at the third lumbar vertebrae. Low muscle CSA index was defined as ≤38.9 cm2 /m2 for women and ≤55.4 cm2 /m2 for men. Low muscle density was defined as <41 Hounsfield units (HU) for body mass index (BMI) <24.9 kg/m2 and <33 HU for BMI ≥25.0 kg/m2 . RESULTS: In both the arterial and 3-minute phases, contrast administration decreased visceral adipose CSA (-20.9 and -20.9 cm2 ; P < .001) and increased visceral adipose density (4.8 and 5.8 HU; P < .001), relative to precontrast images. Muscle CSA index marginally increased in the arterial (0.6 cm2 /m2 ; P = .007) and 3-minute phases (0.8 cm2 /m2 ; P < .001). This likely represents clinically insignificant changes because it does not alter the identification of low muscle CSA (44.4% vs 42.2%; P = 1.00). Skeletal muscle density increased in the arterial (6.4 HU; P < .001) and 3-minute phases (8.7 HU; P < .001), which altered the identification of low muscle density (6.7% vs 31.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Future analyses should consider the phase of contrast during CT imaging because it may alter the interpretations of several parameters.
Authors: Anne van der Werf; Ingeborg M Dekker; Martijn R Meijerink; Nicolette J Wierdsma; Marian A E de van der Schueren; Jacqueline A E Langius Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2017-04-16 Impact factor: 2.273
Authors: Jiantao Ma; Nicola M McKeown; Shih-Jen Hwang; Udo Hoffmann; Paul F Jacques; Caroline S Fox Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sarah P Psutka; Stephen A Boorjian; Michael R Moynagh; Grant D Schmit; Brian A Costello; R Houston Thompson; Suzanne B Stewart-Merrill; Christine M Lohse; John C Cheville; Bradley C Leibovich; Matthew K Tollefson Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alina Vrieling; Ellen Kampman; Nathalja C Knijnenburg; Peter F Mulders; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Vickie E Baracos; Lambertus A Kiemeney Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2016-12-04
Authors: Katie E Rollins; Hannah Javanmard-Emamghissi; Amir Awwad; Ian A Macdonald; Kenneth C H Fearon; Dileep N Lobo Journal: Nutrition Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 4.008
Authors: Kenneth Clark; Bruce Vendt; Kirk Smith; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Paul Koppel; Stephen Moore; Stanley Phillips; David Maffitt; Michael Pringle; Lawrence Tarbox; Fred Prior Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Klara J Rosenquist; Alison Pedley; Joseph M Massaro; Kate E Therkelsen; Joanne M Murabito; Udo Hoffmann; Caroline S Fox Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-05-08
Authors: Amy L Shaver; Mary E Platek; Anurag K Singh; Sung Jun Ma; Mark Farrugia; Gregory Wilding; Andrew D Ray; Heather M Ochs-Balcom; Katia Noyes Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.638
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
Authors: Brian A Derstine; Sven A Holcombe; Brian E Ross; Nicholas C Wang; Stewart C Wang; Grace L Su Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 4.379