Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Optimal CT Number Range for Adipose Tissue When Determining Lean Body Mass in Whole-Body F-18 FDG PET/CT Studies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to define an optimal CT number range applicable to adipose tissue (AT) measurement in modern PET/CT systems.

Methods

CT number (in Hounsfield units, HU) was measured in three different pure AT compartments in 53 patients. CT number range for AT was determined in three different ways, including pixel histogram analysis, to take the effect of partial volume averaging into account. The effect of changing the CT number range for AT on the total AT volume was investigated.

Results

The lower limits for CT number for pure subcutaneous AT, retroperitoneal AT, and visceral AT were −140, –140, and −130 HU, respectively. The corresponding upper limits were −70, –71, and −52 HU. The CT number range for AT using three methods when considering partial volume averaging was −144 to −141 HU to −30 to −33 HU, showing similar values between the three methods. The optimal CT number range for AT based on these data was −140 to −30 HU. Increases in total AT volume of 7.5 % and 1.8 % were found when the upper or lower limit was extended using 10 HU intervals, respectively, compared with the reference range of −140 to −30 HU.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the optimal CT number range of AT that is applicable to modern PET/CT systems can be defined as −140 to −30 HU. The use of this CT number range of AT allowed lean body mass to be determined in whole-body F-18 FDG PET/CT studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim D-W, Kim C, Park S-A, Jung S-A. Experience of dual time point brain F-18 FDG PET/CT Imaging in patients with infectious disease. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;44(2):137–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim J, Kim H, Kim J, Moon D, Kim Y, Kim D, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT is useful for pretreatment assessment of the histopathologic type of thymic epithelial tumors. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;44(3):177–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellisari A, Roche AF. Anthropometry and ultrasound. In: Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG, Wang Z, Going SB, editors. Human body composition. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2005. p. 109–27.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chowdhury B, Sjostrom L, Alpsten M, Kostanty J, Kvist H, Lofgren R. A multicompartment body composition technique based on computerized tomography. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1994;18(4):219–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang ZM, Pierson Jr RN, Heymsfield SB. The five-level model: a new approach to organizing body-composition research. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;56(1):19–28.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ross R, Leger L, Guardo R, De Guise J, Pike BG. Adipose tissue volume measured by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography in rats. J Appl Physiol (Bethesda, Md: 1985). 1991;70(5):2164–72.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mitsiopoulos N, Baumgartner RN, Heymsfield SB, Lyons W, Gallagher D, Ross R. Cadaver validation of skeletal muscle measurement by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography. J Appl Physiol (Bethesda, Md: 1985). 1998;85(1):115–22.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rossner S, Bo WJ, Hiltbrandt E, Hinson W, Karstaedt N, Santago P, et al. Adipose tissue determinations in cadavers—a comparison between cross-sectional planimetry and computed tomography. Int J Obes. 1990;14(10):893–902.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Seidell JC, Bakker CJ, van der Kooy K. Imaging techniques for measuring adipose-tissue distribution–a comparison between computed tomography and 1.5-T magnetic resonance. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51(6):953–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sjostrom L, Kvist H, Cederblad A, Tylen U. Determination of total adipose tissue and body fat in women by computed tomography, 40K, and tritium. Am J Physiol. 1986;250(6 Pt 1):E736–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mattsson S, Thomas BJ. Development of methods for body composition studies. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(13):R203–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ross R. Advances in the application of imaging methods in applied and clinical physiology. Acta Diabetol. 2003;40 Suppl 1:S45–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Busetto L, Baggio MB, Zurlo F, Carraro R, Digito M, Enzi G. Assessment of abdominal fat distribution in obese patients: anthropometry versus computerized tomography. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1992;16(10):731–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Christen T, Sheikine Y, Rocha VZ, Hurwitz S, Goldfine AB, Di Carli M, et al. Increased glucose uptake in visceral versus subcutaneous adipose tissue revealed by PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(8):843–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grauer WO, Moss AA, Cann CE, Goldberg HI. Quantification of body fat distribution in the abdomen using computed tomography. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984;39(4):631–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kvist H, Sjostrom L, Tylen U. Adipose tissue volume determinations in women by computed tomography: technical considerations. Int J Obes. 1986;10(1):53–67.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Liem ET, De Lucia Rolfe E, L’Abee C, Sauer PJ, Ong KK, Stolk RP. Measuring abdominal adiposity in 6 to 7-year-old children. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009;63(7):835–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Yoshizumi T, Nakamura T, Yamane M, Islam AH, Menju M, Yamasaki K, et al. Abdominal fat: standardized technique for measurement at CT. Radiology. 1999;211(1):283–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 2004;24(6):1679–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mahnken AH, Raupach R, Wildberger JE, Jung B, Heussen N, Flohr TG, et al. A new algorithm for metal artifact reduction in computed tomography: in vitro and in vivo evaluation after total hip replacement. Investig Radiol. 2003;38(12):769–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yazdi M, Beaulieu L. Artifacts in spiral X-ray CT scanners: problems and solutions international. J Biol Life Sci. 2008;4(3):135–9.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Martin AD, Daniel MZ, Drinkwater DT, Clarys JP. Adipose tissue density, estimated adipose lipid fraction and whole body adiposity in male cadavers. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1994;18(2):79–83.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Schoen RE, Evans RW, Sankey SS, Weissfeld JL, Kuller L. Does visceral adipose tissue differ from subcutaneous adipose tissue in fatty acid content? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996;20(4):346–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Viljanen AP, Lautamaki R, Jarvisalo M, Parkkola R, Huupponen R, Lehtimaki T, et al. Effects of weight loss on visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue blood-flow and insulin-mediated glucose uptake in healthy obese subjects. Ann Med. 2009;41(2):152–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rogalla P, Meiri N, Hoksch B, Boeing H, Hamm B. Low-dose spiral computed tomography for measuring abdominal fat volume and distribution in a clinical setting. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998;52(8):597–602.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. van der Kooy K, Seidell JC. Techniques for the measurement of visceral fat: a practical guide. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993;17(4):187–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. A report of age- and gender-related differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of reference individuals. ICRP Publication 89. Ann ICRP. 2002;32(3–4):5–265.

  28. Wang ZM, Deurenberg P, Guo SS, Pietrobelli A, Wang J, Pierson Jr RN, et al. Six-compartment body composition model: inter-method comparisons of total body fat measurement. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998;22(4):329–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Demura S, Sato S. Prediction of visceral fat area in Japanese adults: proposal of prediction method applicable in a field setting. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007;61(6):727–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by Wonkwang University in 2010.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, 344-2 Shinyong-Dong, Iksan, 570-711, Korea

    Woo Hyoung Kim, Chang Guhn Kim & Dae-Weung Kim

  2. Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, 344-2 Shinyong-Dong, Iksan, Korea

    Chang Guhn Kim & Dae-Weung Kim

Authors
  1. Woo Hyoung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chang Guhn Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dae-Weung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chang Guhn Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, W.H., Kim, C.G. & Kim, DW. Optimal CT Number Range for Adipose Tissue When Determining Lean Body Mass in Whole-Body F-18 FDG PET/CT Studies. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46, 294–299 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-012-0175-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-012-0175-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation