Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 346–354 | Cite as

Validation of a DIXON-based fat quantification technique for the measurement of visceral fat using a CT-based reference standard

  • Katherine M. Heckman
  • Bamidele Otemuyiwa
  • Thomas L. Chenevert
  • Dariya Malyarenko
  • Brian A. Derstine
  • Stewart C. Wang
  • Matthew S. DavenportEmail author
Article
  • 93 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to determine whether a novel semi-automated DIXON-based fat quantification algorithm can reliably quantify visceral fat using a CT-based reference standard.

Methods

This was an IRB-approved retrospective cohort study of 27 subjects who underwent abdominopelvic CT within 7 days of proton density fat fraction (PDFF) mapping on a 1.5T MRI. Cross-sectional visceral fat area per slice (cm2) was measured in blinded fashion in each modality at intervertebral disc levels from T12 to L4. CT estimates were obtained using a previously published semi-automated computational image processing system that sums pixels with attenuation − 205 to − 51 HU. MR estimates were obtained using two novel semi-automated DIXON-based fat quantification algorithms that measure visceral fat area by spatially regularizing non-uniform fat-only signal intensity or de-speckling PDFF 2D images and summing pixels with PDFF ≥ 50%. Pearson’s correlations and Bland–Altman analyses were performed.

Results

Visceral fat area per slice ranged from 9.2 to 429.8 cm2 for MR and from 1.6 to 405.5 cm2 for CT. There was a strong correlation between CT and MR methods in measured visceral fat area across all studied vertebral body levels (r = 0.97; n = 101 observations); the least (r = 0.93) correlation was at T12. Bland–Altman analysis revealed a bias of 31.7 cm2 (95% CI [− 27.1]–90.4 cm2), indicating modestly higher visceral fat assessed by MR.

Conclusion

MR- and CT-based visceral fat quantification are highly correlated and have good cross-modality reliability, indicating that visceral fat quantification by either method can yield a stable and reliable biomarker.

Keywords

Morphometry Visceral fat Quantitative imaging Biomarker Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

No funding was solicited or used for this work. Institutional review board approval was obtained. The requirement for informed consent was waived by the IRB. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Financial disclosure

Matthew Davenport—Royalties from Wolters Kluwer, Katherine M. Heckman—No conflict of interest, Bamidele Otemuyiwa—No conflict of interest, Thomas L. Chenevert—No conflict of interest, Dariya Malyarenko—No conflict of interest, Brian A. Derstine—No conflict of interest, Stewart C Wang—No conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Garg K, Chang S, Scherzinger A (2013) Obesity and diabetes: newer concepts in imaging. Diabetes Technol Ther 15:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shuster A, Patlas M, Pinthus JH, et al. (2012) The clinical importance of visceral adiposity: a critical review of methods for visceral adipose tissue analysis. Br J Radiol 85:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balentine CJ, Marshall C, Robinson C, et al. (2010) Validating quantitative obesity measurements in colorectal cancer patients. J Surg Res 164:18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shen W, Wang Z, Punyanita M, et al. (2003) Adipose tissue quantification by imaging methods: a proposed classification. Obes Res 11:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Furukawa K, Katabami T, Nakajima Y, et al. (2010) Evaluation of a whole-abdominal fat volume by 700-slice CT scanning and comparison with the umbilical fat area anthropometric indices. Obes Res Clin Pract 4:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demerath EW, Reed D, Rogers N, et al. (2008) Visceral adiposity and its anatomical distribution as predictors of the metabolic syndrome and cardiometabolic risk factor levels. Am J Clin Nutr 88:1263–1271Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doyle SL, Bennett AM, Donohoe CL, et al. (2013) Establishing computed tomography-defined visceral fat area thresholds for use in obesity-related cancer research. Nutr Res 33:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abdelbadee AY, Paspulati RM, McFarland HD, et al. (2016) Computed tomography morphometrics and pulmonary intolerance in endometrial cancer robotic surgery. J Minim Invas Gynecol 23:1075–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Locke JE, Carr JJ, Sangeeta N, et al. (2017) Abdominal lean muscle is associated with lower mortality among kidney waitlist candidates. Clin Transplant 31:e12911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sabel MS, Terjimanian M, Conlon ASC, et al. (2013) Analytic morphometric assessment of patients undergoing colectomy for colon cancer. J Surg Oncol 108:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Der Sloot KWJ, Joshi AD, Bellavance DR, et al. (2017) Visceral adiposity, genetic susceptibility, and risk of complications among individuals with Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 23:82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demerath EW, Shen W, Lee M, et al. (2007) Approximation of total visceral adipose tissue with a single magnetic resonance image. Am J Clin Nutr 85:362–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schweitzer L, Geisler C, Pourhassan M, et al. (2015) What is the best reference site for a single MRI slice to assess whole-body skeletal muscle and adipose tissue volumes in healthy adults? Am J Clin Nutr 102:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shen W, Punyanitya M, Wang Z, et al. (2004) Total body skeletal muscle and adipose tissue volumes: estimation from a single abdominal cross-sectional image. J Appl Physiol 97:2333–2338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bosy-Westphal A, Later W, Hitze B, et al. (2008) Accuracy of bioelectrical impedance consumer devices for measurement of body composition in comparison to whole body magnetic resonance imaging and dual X-ray absorptiometry. Obes Facts 1:319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stewart KJ, DeRegis JR, Turner KL, et al. (2003) Usefulness of anthropometrics and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for estimating abdominal obesity measured by magnetic resonance imaging in older men and women. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 23:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Connor M, Ryan J, Foley S (2015) Best single-slice location to measure visceral adipose tissue on paediatric CT scans and the relationship between anthropometric measurements, gender and VAT volume in children. Br J Radiol 88:20140711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee S, Kuk JL, Kim Y, et al. (2011) Measurement site of visceral adipose tissue and prediction of metabolic syndrome in youth. Pediatr Diabetes 12:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li X, Youngren JF, Hyun B, et al. (2008) Technical evaluation of in vivo abdominal fat and IMCL quantification using MRI and MRSI at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging 26:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seidell JC, Bakker CJG, van der Kooy K (1990) Imaging techniques for measuring adipose-tissue distribution—a comparison between computed tomography and 1.5T magnetic resonance. Am J Clin Nutr 51:953–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuk JL, Church TS, Blair SN, et al. (2010) Measurement site and the association between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue with metabolic risk in women. Obesity 18:1336–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shen W, Punyanitya M, Chen J, et al. (2007) Visceral adipose tissue: relationships between single slice areas at different locations and obesity-related health risks. Int J Obes 31:763–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reeder SB, Hu HH, Sirlin CB (2012) Proton density fat-fraction: a standardized MR-based biomarker of tissue fat concentration. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:1011–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stidham RW, Waljee AK, Day NM, et al. (2015) Body fat composition assessment using analytic morphomics predicts infectious complications after bowel resection in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 21:1306–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Klopfenstein BJ, Kim MS, Krisky CM, et al. (2012) Comparison of 3T MRI and CT for the measurement of visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue in humans. Br J Radiol 85:826–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gomi T, Kawawa Y, Nagamoto M, et al. (2005) Measurement of visceral fat/subcutaneous fat ratio by 0.3 Tesla MRI. Radiat Med 23:584–587Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kullberg J, Brandberg J, Angelhed JE, et al. (2009) Whole-body adipose tissue analysis: comparison of MRI, CT and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Br J Radiol 82:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stolk RP, Wink O, Zelissen PMJ, et al. (2011) Validity and reproducibility of ultrasonography for the measurement of intra-abdominal adipose tissue. Int J Obes 25:1346–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Middleton MS, Haufe W, Hooker J, et al. (2017) Quantifying abdominal adipose tissue and thigh muscle volume and hepatic proton density fat fraction: repeatability and accuracy of an MR imaging-based semiautomated analysis method. Radiology 283:438–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Davenport MS, Neville AM, Ellis JH, et al. (2011) Diagnosis of renal angiomyolipoma with Hounsfield unit thresholds: effect of size of region of interest and nephrographic phase imaging. Radiology 260:158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine M. Heckman
    • 1
  • Bamidele Otemuyiwa
    • 1
  • Thomas L. Chenevert
    • 2
  • Dariya Malyarenko
    • 2
  • Brian A. Derstine
    • 3
  • Stewart C. Wang
    • 3
    • 4
  • Matthew S. Davenport
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.University of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyMichigan MedicineAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Morphomics Analysis GroupMichigan MedicineAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryMichigan MedicineAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Michigan Radiology Quality CollaborativeAnn ArborUSA
  6. 6.Department of UrologyMichigan MedicineAnn ArborUSA
  7. 7.Ann ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations