A comparative study of software programmes for cross‐sectional skeletal muscle and adipose tissue measurements on abdominal computed tomography scans of rectal cancer patients

Abstract

BackgroundThe association between body composition (e.g. sarcopenia or visceral obesity) and treatment outcomes, such as survival, using single‐slice computed tomography (CT)‐based measurements has recently been studied in various patient groups. These studies have been conducted with different software programmes, each with their specific characteristics, of which the inter‐observer, intra‐observer, and inter‐software correlation are unknown. Therefore, a comparative study was performed.MethodsFifty abdominal CT scans were randomly selected from 50 different patients and independently assessed by two observers. Cross‐sectional muscle area (CSMA, i.e. rectus abdominis, oblique and transverse abdominal muscles, paraspinal muscles, and the psoas muscle), visceral adipose tissue area (VAT), and subcutaneous adipose tissue area (SAT) were segmented by using standard Hounsfield unit ranges and computed for regions of interest. The inter‐software, intra‐observer, and inter‐observer agreement for CSMA, VAT, and SAT measurements using FatSeg, OsiriX, ImageJ, and sliceOmatic were calculated using intra‐class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman analyses. Cohen's κ was calculated for the agreement of sarcopenia and visceral obesity assessment. The Jaccard similarity coefficient was used to compare the similarity and diversity of measurements.ResultsBland–Altman analyses and ICC indicated that the CSMA, VAT, and SAT measurements between the different software programmes were highly comparable (ICC 0.979–1.000, P < 0.001). All programmes adequately distinguished between the presence or absence of sarcopenia (κ = 0.88–0.96 for one observer and all κ = 1.00 for all comparisons of the other observer) and visceral obesity (all κ = 1.00). Furthermore, excellent intra‐observer (ICC 0.999–1.000, P < 0.001) and inter‐observer (ICC 0.998–0.999, P < 0.001) agreement for all software programmes were found. Accordingly, excellent Jaccard similarity coefficients were found for all comparisons (mean ≥ 0.964).ConclusionsFatSeg, OsiriX, ImageJ, and sliceOmatic showed an excellent agreement for CSMA, VAT, and SAT measurements on abdominal CT scans. Furthermore, excellent inter‐observer and intra‐observer agreement were achieved. Therefore, results of studies using these different software programmes can reliably be compared.

Poor performance of psoas muscle index for identification of patients with higher waitlist mortality risk in cirrhosis

“…CT scans in the majority of cachexia-associated disease such as cancer and cirrhosis, as well as high accuracy and time efficacy of different software programmers 28 for body composition measurements, finding an appropriate indicator of muscle mass, i.e. total muscle or psoas, should be the priority in cachexia context.…”

Low Skeletal Muscle Density Is Associated with Early Death in Patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma Regardless of Subsequent Treatment

“…Skeletal muscle mass was measured on abdominal CT, using an in-house developed software package as previously described [23, 24]. In short, the cross-sectional skeletal muscle area (CSMA, in cm 2 ) was measured at the level of the third lumbar vertebra (L3) using a Hounsfield unit range of –30 to 150.…”

Association between body composition, survival, and toxicity in advanced esophagogastric cancer patients receiving palliative chemotherapy

“…The medical imaging software Slice-O-Matic ® (version 5.0; Tomovision, Montreal, Quebec, Canada) was used to identify and demarcate the skeletal muscle compartments at the L3 level using predetermined cut-off points for Hounsfield units (HU) (À29 to +150). 8,14,25 Using two single-slice axial images, the average surface areas of the psoas muscles, abdominal wall muscles, and paraspinal muscles, in which transverse and spinous processes were visible, were used to determine muscle area. CT scans were analysed by a trained investigator (M. P.).…”