Aniek T Zwart1,2,3, Jan-Niklas Becker4, Maria J Lamers4, Rudi A J O Dierckx4, Geertruida H de Bock5, Gyorgy B Halmos6, Anouk van der Hoorn4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, 30.001, Hanzeplein 1, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. a.t.zwart@umcg.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. a.t.zwart@umcg.nl. 3. Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. a.t.zwart@umcg.nl. 4. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, 30.001, Hanzeplein 1, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cross-sectional area (CSA) measurements of the neck musculature at the level of third cervical vertebra (C3) on CT scans are used to diagnose radiological sarcopenia, which is related to multiple adverse outcomes in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Alternatively, these assessments are performed with neck MRI, which has not been validated so far. For that, the objective was to evaluate whether skeletal muscle mass and sarcopenia can be assessed on neck MRI scans. METHODS: HNC patients were included between November 2014 and November 2018 from a prospective data-biobank. CSAs of the neck musculature at the C3 level were measured on CT (n = 125) and MRI neck scans (n = 92 on 1.5-T, n = 33 on 3-T). Measurements were converted into skeletal muscle index (SMI), and sarcopenia was defined (SMI < 43.2 cm2/m2). Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, McNemar test, Cohen's kappa coefficients, and interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were estimated. RESULTS: CT and MRI correlated highly on CSA and SMI (r = 0.958-0.998, p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman plots showed a nihil mean ΔSMI (- 0.13-0.44 cm2/m2). There was no significant difference between CT and MRI in diagnosing sarcopenia (McNemar, p = 0.5-1.0). Agreement on sarcopenia diagnosis was good with κ = 0.956-0.978 and κ = 0.870-0.933, for 1.5-T and 3-T respectively. Observer ICCs in MRI were excellent. In general, T2-weighted images had the best correlation and agreement with CT. CONCLUSIONS: Skeletal muscle mass and sarcopenia can interchangeably be assessed on CT and 1.5-T and 3-T MRI neck scans. This allows future clinical outcome assessment during treatment irrespective of used modality. KEY POINTS: • Screening for low amount of skeletal muscle mass is usually measured on neck CT scans and is highly clinical relevant as it is related to multiple adverse outcomes in head and neck cancer patients. • We found that skeletal muscle mass and sarcopenia determined on CT and 1.5-T and 3-T MRI neck scans at the C3 level can be used interchangeably. • When CT imaging of the neck is missing for skeletal muscle mass analysis, patients can be assessed with 1.5-T or 3-T neck MRIs.
OBJECTIVES: Cross-sectional area (CSA) measurements of the neck musculature at the level of third cervical vertebra (C3) on CT scans are used to diagnose radiological sarcopenia, which is related to multiple adverse outcomes in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Alternatively, these assessments are performed with neck MRI, which has not been validated so far. For that, the objective was to evaluate whether skeletal muscle mass and sarcopenia can be assessed on neck MRI scans. METHODS: HNC patients were included between November 2014 and November 2018 from a prospective data-biobank. CSAs of the neck musculature at the C3 level were measured on CT (n = 125) and MRI neck scans (n = 92 on 1.5-T, n = 33 on 3-T). Measurements were converted into skeletal muscle index (SMI), and sarcopenia was defined (SMI < 43.2 cm2/m2). Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, McNemar test, Cohen's kappa coefficients, and interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were estimated. RESULTS: CT and MRI correlated highly on CSA and SMI (r = 0.958-0.998, p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman plots showed a nihil mean ΔSMI (- 0.13-0.44 cm2/m2). There was no significant difference between CT and MRI in diagnosing sarcopenia (McNemar, p = 0.5-1.0). Agreement on sarcopenia diagnosis was good with κ = 0.956-0.978 and κ = 0.870-0.933, for 1.5-T and 3-T respectively. Observer ICCs in MRI were excellent. In general, T2-weighted images had the best correlation and agreement with CT. CONCLUSIONS: Skeletal muscle mass and sarcopenia can interchangeably be assessed on CT and 1.5-T and 3-T MRI neck scans. This allows future clinical outcome assessment during treatment irrespective of used modality. KEY POINTS: • Screening for low amount of skeletal muscle mass is usually measured on neck CT scans and is highly clinical relevant as it is related to multiple adverse outcomes in head and neck cancerpatients. • We found that skeletal muscle mass and sarcopenia determined on CT and 1.5-T and 3-T MRI neck scans at the C3 level can be used interchangeably. • When CT imaging of the neck is missing for skeletal muscle mass analysis, patients can be assessed with 1.5-T or 3-T neck MRIs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Head and neck neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Muscle, skeletal; Sarcopenia; Tomography, X-ray computed
Authors: Marina Mourtzakis; Carla M M Prado; Jessica R Lieffers; Tony Reiman; Linda J McCargar; Vickie E Baracos Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Aniek T Zwart; Anouk van der Hoorn; Peter M A van Ooijen; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Geertruida H de Bock; Gyorgy B Halmos Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Anton Faron; Alois M Sprinkart; Daniel L R Kuetting; Andreas Feisst; Alexander Isaak; Christoph Endler; Johannes Chang; Sebastian Nowak; Wolfgang Block; Daniel Thomas; Ulrike Attenberger; Julian A Luetkens Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: S I Bril; A W Wendrich; J E Swartz; I Wegner; F Pameijer; E J Smid; G H Bol; A J Pothen; R de Bree Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Remco de Bree; Christiaan D A Meerkerk; Gyorgy B Halmos; Antti A Mäkitie; Akihiro Homma; Juan P Rodrigo; Fernando López; Robert P Takes; Jan B Vermorken; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Mohamed A Naser; Kareem A Wahid; Aaron J Grossberg; Brennan Olson; Rishab Jain; Dina El-Habashy; Cem Dede; Vivian Salama; Moamen Abobakr; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Renjie He; Joel Jaskari; Jaakko Sahlsten; Kimmo Kaski; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Aniek T Zwart; Wolf Pörtzgen; Irene van Rijn-Dekker; Grigory A Sidorenkov; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Roel J H M Steenbakkers; Inge Wegner; Anouk van der Hoorn; Geertruida H de Bock; Gyorgy B Halmos Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 4.964