Clinical nutrition ESPEN · 2021
Quantification of adipose tissues by Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Computed Tomography in colorectal cancer patients.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alavi Dena Helene, Henriksen Hege Berg, Lauritzen Peter Mæhre, Kværner Ane Sørlie, Sakinis Tomas, Langleite Torgrim Mikal, Henriksen Christine, Bøhn Siv Kjølsrud, Paur Ingvild, Wiedswang Gro, Smeland Sigbjørn, Blomhoff Rune
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Excess adipose tissue may affect colorectal cancer (CRC) patients' disease progression and treatment. In contrast to the commonly used anthropometric measurements, Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA) and Computed Tomography (CT) can differentiate adipose tissues. However, these modalities are rarely used in the clinic despite providing high-quality estimates. This study aimed to compare DXA's measurement of abdominal visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and fat mass (FM) against a corresponding volume by CT in a CRC population. Secondly, we aimed to identify the best single lumbar CT slice for abdominal VAT. Lastly, we investigated the associations between anthropometric measurements and VAT estimated by DXA and CT.
METHODS: Non-metastatic CRC patients between 50-80 years from the ongoing randomized controlled trial CRC-NORDIET were included in this cross-sectional study. Corresponding abdominal volumes were acquired by Lunar iDXA and from clinically acquired CT examinations. Also, single CT slices at L2-, L3-and L4-level were obtained. Agreement between the methods was investigated using univariate linear regression and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: Sixty-six CRC patients were included. Abdominal volumetric VAT and FM measured by DXA explained up to 91% and 96% of the variance in VAT and FM by CT, respectively. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated an overestimation of VAT by DXA compared to CT (mean difference of 76 cm3) concurrent with an underestimation of FM (mean difference of -319 cm3). A higher overestimation of VAT (p = 0.015) and underestimation of FM (p = 0.036) were observed in obese relative to normal weight subjects. VAT in a single slice at L3-level showed the highest explained variance against CT volume (R2 = 0.97), but a combination of three slices (L2, L3, L4) explained a significantly higher variance than L3 alone (R2 = 0.98, p < 0.006). The anthropometric measurements explained between 31-65% of the variance of volumetric VAT measured by DXA and CT.
CONCLUSIONS: DXA and the combined use of three CT slices (L2-L4) are valid to predict abdominal volumetric VAT and FM in CRC patients when using volumetric CT as a reference method. Due to the poor performance of anthropometric measurements we recommend exploring the added value of advanced body composition by DXA and CT integrated into CRC care.
METHODS: Non-metastatic CRC patients between 50-80 years from the ongoing randomized controlled trial CRC-NORDIET were included in this cross-sectional study. Corresponding abdominal volumes were acquired by Lunar iDXA and from clinically acquired CT examinations. Also, single CT slices at L2-, L3-and L4-level were obtained. Agreement between the methods was investigated using univariate linear regression and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: Sixty-six CRC patients were included. Abdominal volumetric VAT and FM measured by DXA explained up to 91% and 96% of the variance in VAT and FM by CT, respectively. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated an overestimation of VAT by DXA compared to CT (mean difference of 76 cm3) concurrent with an underestimation of FM (mean difference of -319 cm3). A higher overestimation of VAT (p = 0.015) and underestimation of FM (p = 0.036) were observed in obese relative to normal weight subjects. VAT in a single slice at L3-level showed the highest explained variance against CT volume (R2 = 0.97), but a combination of three slices (L2, L3, L4) explained a significantly higher variance than L3 alone (R2 = 0.98, p < 0.006). The anthropometric measurements explained between 31-65% of the variance of volumetric VAT measured by DXA and CT.
CONCLUSIONS: DXA and the combined use of three CT slices (L2-L4) are valid to predict abdominal volumetric VAT and FM in CRC patients when using volumetric CT as a reference method. Due to the poor performance of anthropometric measurements we recommend exploring the added value of advanced body composition by DXA and CT integrated into CRC care.