Chiara Zaffina1, Rolf Wyttenbach2,3,4, Alberto Pagnamenta5,6,7, Rosario Francesco Grasso8, Matteo Biroli9, Filippo Del Grande2,3, Stefania Rizzo2,3. 1. Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Roma, Italy. 2. Istituto di Imaging della Svizzera Italiana (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland. 3. Facoltà di Scienze Biomediche, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland. 4. Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology (DIPR), Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Clinical Trial Unit, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland. 6. Intensive Care Unit, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Mendrisio, Switzerland. 7. Division of Pneumology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 8. Departmental Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Interventional Radiology, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy. 9. Humanitas University, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to compare measurements of skeletal muscle index (SMI), visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) at the level of L3, on subjects who underwent computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations within a three-month period. The secondary objective was to compare the automatic and semi-automatic quantifications of the same values for CT images. METHODS: Among subjects who underwent CT and MRI at our Institution between 2011 and 2020, exclusion criteria were: presence of extensive artifacts; images not including the whole waist circumference; CT acquired with low-dose technique and lack of non-contrast images. A set of three axial images (CT, MRI T1-weighted and T2-weighted) were used to extract the following measurements with semi-automatic segmentations: SMI [calculated normalizing skeletal muscle area (SMA) by the square height], SAT, VAT. For the CT images only, the same values were also calculated by using automatic segmentation. Statistical analysis was performed comparing quantitative MRI and CT measurements by Pearson correlation analysis and by Bland-Altman agreement analysis. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were included. By performing linear regression analysis, CT and MRI measurements of SMI showed a high correlation (r2=0.81 for T1, r2=0.89 for T2), with a mean logarithmic difference between CT and MRI quantitative values of 0.041 for T1-weighted and 0.072 for T2-weighted images. CT and MRI measurements of SAT showed high correlation (r2=0.81 for T1; r2=0.81 for T2), with a mean logarithmic difference between CT and MRI values of 0.0174 for T1-weighted and 0.201 for T2-weighted images. CT and MRI measurements of VAT showed high correlation (r2=0.94 for T1; r2=0.93 for T2), with a mean logarithmic difference of 0.040 for T1-weighted and -0.084 for T2-weighted images. The comparison of values extracted by semi-automatic and automatic segmentations were highly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Quantification of body composition values at MRI from T1-weighted and T2-weighted images was highly correlated to same values at CT, therefore quantitative values of body composition among patients who underwent either one of the examinations may be compared. CT body composition values extracted by semi-automatic and automatic segmentations showed high correlation. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to compare measurements of skeletal muscle index (SMI), visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) at the level of L3, on subjects who underwent computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations within a three-month period. The secondary objective was to compare the automatic and semi-automatic quantifications of the same values for CT images. METHODS: Among subjects who underwent CT and MRI at our Institution between 2011 and 2020, exclusion criteria were: presence of extensive artifacts; images not including the whole waist circumference; CT acquired with low-dose technique and lack of non-contrast images. A set of three axial images (CT, MRI T1-weighted and T2-weighted) were used to extract the following measurements with semi-automatic segmentations: SMI [calculated normalizing skeletal muscle area (SMA) by the square height], SAT, VAT. For the CT images only, the same values were also calculated by using automatic segmentation. Statistical analysis was performed comparing quantitative MRI and CT measurements by Pearson correlation analysis and by Bland-Altman agreement analysis. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were included. By performing linear regression analysis, CT and MRI measurements of SMI showed a high correlation (r2=0.81 for T1, r2=0.89 for T2), with a mean logarithmic difference between CT and MRI quantitative values of 0.041 for T1-weighted and 0.072 for T2-weighted images. CT and MRI measurements of SAT showed high correlation (r2=0.81 for T1; r2=0.81 for T2), with a mean logarithmic difference between CT and MRI values of 0.0174 for T1-weighted and 0.201 for T2-weighted images. CT and MRI measurements of VAT showed high correlation (r2=0.94 for T1; r2=0.93 for T2), with a mean logarithmic difference of 0.040 for T1-weighted and -0.084 for T2-weighted images. The comparison of values extracted by semi-automatic and automatic segmentations were highly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Quantification of body composition values at MRI from T1-weighted and T2-weighted images was highly correlated to same values at CT, therefore quantitative values of body composition among patients who underwent either one of the examinations may be compared. CT body composition values extracted by semi-automatic and automatic segmentations showed high correlation. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Body composition; computed tomography (CT); magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
Authors: Tejas Dalal; Mannudeep K Kalra; Stefania M R Rizzo; Bernhard Schmidt; Christoph Suess; Thomas Flohr; Michael A Blake; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Darren D Brennan; Paul F Whelan; Kevin Robinson; Ovidiu Ghita; Julie M O'Brien; Robert Sadleir; Stephen J Eustace Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: P Tandon; M Mourtzakis; G Low; L Zenith; M Ney; M Carbonneau; A Alaboudy; S Mann; N Esfandiari; M Ma Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Jürgen Machann; Claus Thamer; Birgit Schnoedt; Michael Haap; Hans-Ulrich Haring; Claus D Claussen; Michael Stumvoll; Andreas Fritsche; Fritz Schick Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Peter M Graffy; Alberto A Perez; Meghan G Lubner; Daniel C Elton; Ronald M Summers Journal: Radiographics Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Magnus Borga; Janne West; Jimmy D Bell; Nicholas C Harvey; Thobias Romu; Steven B Heymsfield; Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard Journal: J Investig Med Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Stefania Rizzo; Francesco Petrella; Claudia Bardoni; Lorenzo Bramati; Andrea Cara; Shehab Mohamed; Davide Radice; Giorgio Raia; Filippo Del Grande; Lorenzo Spaggiari Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Stefania Rizzo; Isabel Scala; Angela Rodriguez Robayo; Marco Cefalì; Sara De Dosso; Stefano Cappio; Genti Xhepa; Filippo Del Grande Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 5.738