Behrang Amini1, Sean P Boyle2, Robert D Boutin2, Leon Lenchik3. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, North Carolina. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: There is increasing use of computed tomography (CT) in sarcopenia research using a wide variety of techniques. We performed a systematic review of the CT literature to identify the differences between approaches used. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed from 1983 to 2017 was performed to identify studies that used CT muscle measurements to assess muscle mass and myosteatosis. The CT protocols were evaluated based on anatomic landmark(s), thresholding, muscle(s) segmented, key measurement (ie, muscle attenuation, cross-sectional area, volume), derived variables, and analysis software. From the described search, 657 articles were identified and 388 studies met inclusion criteria for this systematic review. RESULTS: Muscle mass was more commonly assessed than myosteatosis (330 vs. 125). The most commonly assessed muscle or muscle groups were total abdominal wall musculature (142/330 and 49/125 for muscle mass and myosteatosis, respectively) and total thigh musculature (90/330 and 48/125). The most commonly used landmark in the abdomen was the L3 vertebra (123/142 and 45/49 for muscle mass and myosteatosis, respectively). Skeletal muscle index and intermuscular adipose tissue were the most commonly used measures of abdominal wall muscle mass (114/142) and myosteatosis (27/49), respectively. Cut points varied across studies. A significant majority of studies failed to report important CT technical parameters, such as use of intravenous contrast and slice thickness (94% and 63%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the CT approaches used for the assessment of muscle mass and myosteatosis. There is a need to develop consensus for CT-based evaluation of sarcopenia and myosteatosis.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: There is increasing use of computed tomography (CT) in sarcopenia research using a wide variety of techniques. We performed a systematic review of the CT literature to identify the differences between approaches used. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed from 1983 to 2017 was performed to identify studies that used CT muscle measurements to assess muscle mass and myosteatosis. The CT protocols were evaluated based on anatomic landmark(s), thresholding, muscle(s) segmented, key measurement (ie, muscle attenuation, cross-sectional area, volume), derived variables, and analysis software. From the described search, 657 articles were identified and 388 studies met inclusion criteria for this systematic review. RESULTS: Muscle mass was more commonly assessed than myosteatosis (330 vs. 125). The most commonly assessed muscle or muscle groups were total abdominal wall musculature (142/330 and 49/125 for muscle mass and myosteatosis, respectively) and total thigh musculature (90/330 and 48/125). The most commonly used landmark in the abdomen was the L3 vertebra (123/142 and 45/49 for muscle mass and myosteatosis, respectively). Skeletal muscle index and intermuscular adipose tissue were the most commonly used measures of abdominal wall muscle mass (114/142) and myosteatosis (27/49), respectively. Cut points varied across studies. A significant majority of studies failed to report important CT technical parameters, such as use of intravenous contrast and slice thickness (94% and 63%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the CT approaches used for the assessment of muscle mass and myosteatosis. There is a need to develop consensus for CT-based evaluation of sarcopenia and myosteatosis.
Authors: B A Derstine; S A Holcombe; R L Goulson; B E Ross; N C Wang; J A Sullivan; G L Su; S C Wang Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Raghavendra Paknikar; Jeffrey Friedman; David Cron; G Michael Deeb; Stanley Chetcuti; P Michael Grossman; Stewart Wang; Michael Englesbe; Himanshu J Patel Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2015-11-21 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Jayme E Locke; J Jeffrey Carr; Sangeeta Nair; James G Terry; Rhiannon D Reed; Grant D Smith; Dorry L Segev; Vineeta Kumar; Cora E Lewis Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Hánah N Rier; Agnes Jager; Stefan Sleijfer; Joost van Rosmalen; Marc C J M Kock; Mark-David Levin Journal: Breast Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Amanika Kumar; Michael R Moynagh; Francesco Multinu; William A Cliby; Michaela E McGree; Amy L Weaver; Phillip M Young; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Carrie L Langstraat; Sean C Dowdy; Aminah Jatoi; Andrea Mariani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 5.482
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: Leon Lenchik; Laura Heacock; Ashley A Weaver; Robert D Boutin; Tessa S Cook; Jason Itri; Christopher G Filippi; Rao P Gullapalli; James Lee; Marianna Zagurovskaya; Tara Retson; Kendra Godwin; Joey Nicholson; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Peggy M Cawthon; Terri Blackwell; Steven R Cummings; Eric S Orwoll; Kate A Duchowny; Deborah M Kado; Katie L Stone; Kristine E Ensrud; Jane A Cauley; William J Evans Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Leon Lenchik; Ryan Barnard; Robert D Boutin; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Haiying Chen; Josh Tan; Peggy M Cawthon; Ashley A Weaver; Fang-Chi Hsu Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Ryan Barnard; Josh Tan; Brandon Roller; Caroline Chiles; Ashley A Weaver; Robert D Boutin; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Leon Lenchik Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Eileen N Phan; Steven W Thorpe; Felix S Wong; Augustine M Saiz; Sandra L Taylor; Robert J Canter; Leon Lenchik; R Lor Randall; Robert D Boutin Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Dylan J Martini; Julie M Shabto; Subir Goyal; Yuan Liu; T Anders Olsen; Sean T Evans; Benjamin L Magod; Deepak Ravindranathan; Jacqueline T Brown; Lauren Yantorni; Greta Anne Russler; Sarah Caulfield; Jamie M Goldman; Bassel Nazha; Shreyas Subhash Joshi; Haydn T Kissick; Kenneth E Ogan; Wayne B Harris; Omer Kucuk; Bradley C Carthon; Viraj A Master; Mehmet Asim Bilen Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-08-18
Authors: Samaneh Farsijani; Lingshu Xue; Robert M Boudreau; Adam J Santanasto; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Anne B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Katelyn A Greene; Shanna S Withers; Leon Lenchik; Janet A Tooze; Ashley A Weaver Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Wilfred Manzano; Leon Lenchik; Akshay S Chaudhari; Lawrence Yao; Sarthak Gupta; Robert D Boutin Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 2.199