Search

A low-dose technique was compared with a standard diagnostic technique for measuring areas of adipose and muscle tissue and CT numbers for muscles in a body composition application. The low-dose technique was intended to keep the expected deviation in the measured area of adipose and muscle tissue to <1% of the total tissue area. The largest diameter of the patient determined the parameters for the low-dose technique. 17 patients — chosen to cover a wide range of diameters (31-47 cm) for both abdomen and thighs — were examined using both techniques. Tissue areas were compared, as were CT numbers for muscle tissue. Image noise was quantified by standard deviation measurements. The area deviation was <1%, except in the smallest subjects, in whom it was <2%. The integral radiation dose of the low-dose technique was reduced to 2-3% for diameters of 31-35 cm and to 7.5-50% for diameters of 36-47 cm as compared with the integral dose by the standard diagnostic technique. The CT numbers of muscle tissue remained unchanged with reduced radiation dose. Image noise was on average 20.9 HU (Hounsfield units) for subjects with diameters of 31-35 cm and 11.2 HU for subjects with diameters in the range of 36-47 cm. In conclusion, for body composition studies with CT, scan protocols can be adjusted so that the integral dose is lowered to 2-60% of the standard diagnostic technique at our centre without adversely altering area measurements of adipose and muscle tissue and without altering CT numbers of muscle tissue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to validate a recently proposed MRI-based T(1)-mapping method for analysis of whole-body adipose tissue (AT) using an established CT protocol as reference and to include results from dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). 10 subjects, drawn from the Swedish Obese Subjects Sibling-pairs study, were examined using CT, MRI and DEXA. The CT analysis was based on 28 imaged slices. T(1) maps were calculated using contiguous MRI data from two different gradient echo sequences acquired using different flip angles. CT and MRI comparison was performed slice-wise and for the whole-body region. Fat weights were compared between all three modalities. Strong correlations (r > or = 0.977, p<0.0001) were found between MRI and CT whole-body and AT volumes. MRI visceral AT volume was underestimated by 0.79 +/- 0.75 l (p = 0.005), but total AT was not significantly different from that estimated by CT (MRI - CT = -0.61+/-1.17 l; p = 0.114). DEXA underestimated fat weights by 5.23 +/- 1.71 kg (p = 0.005) compared with CT. MRI underestimated whole-body volume by 2.03 +/- 1.61 l (p = 0.005) compared with CT. Weights estimated either by CT or by DEXA were not significantly different from weights measured using scales. In conclusion, strong correlations were found between whole-body AT results from CT, MRI-based T(1) mapping and DEXA. If the differences between the results from T(1)-mapping and CT-based analysis are accepted, the T(1)-mapping method allows fully automated post-processing of whole-body MRI data, allowing longitudinal whole-body studies that are also applicable for children and adolescents.