Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Direct Determination of Lean Body Mass by CT in F-18 FDG PET/CT Studies: Comparison with Estimates Using Predictive Equations

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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to estimate lean body mass (LBM) using CT (LBM CTs) and compare the results with LBM estimates of four different predictive equations (LBM PEs) to assess whether LBM CTs and LBM PEs can be used interchangeably for SUV normalization.

Methods

Whole-body F-18 FDG PET/CT studies were conducted on 392 patients. LBM CT1 is modified adipose tissue-free body mass, and LBM CT2 is adipose tissue-free body mass. Four different PEs were used for comparison (LBM PE1–4). Agreement between the two measurement methods was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. We calculated the difference between two methods (bias), the percentage of difference, and the limits of agreement, expressed as a percentage.

Results

For LBM CTs vs. LBM PEs, except LBM PE3, the ranges of biases and limits of agreement were −3.77 to 3.81 kg and 26.60–35.05 %, respectively, indicating the wide limits of agreement and differing magnitudes of bias. For LBM CTs vs. LBM PE3, LBM PE3 had wider limits of agreement and greater positive bias (44.28–46.19 % and 10.49 to 14.04 kg, respectively), showing unacceptably large discrepancies between LBM CTs and LBM PE3.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that there are substantial discrepancies between individual LBM CTs and LBM PEs, and this should be taken into account when LBM CTs and LBM PEs are used interchangeably between patients.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med: Off Publ So Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. James WPT. Research on obesity. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1976. p. 8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Deurenberg P, Weststrate JA, Seidell JC. Body mass index as a measure of body fatness: age- and sex-specific prediction formulas. Br J Nutr. 1991;65(2):105–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Devine B. Gentamicin therapy. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1974;8:650–5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB, Heo M, Jebb SA, Murgatroyd PR, Sakamoto Y. Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;72(3):694–701.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 

  7. 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: J Int Assoc tudy of Obes. 1994;18(4):219–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shen W, St-Onge MP, Wang Z, Heymsfield SB. Study of body composition: an overview. In: Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG, Wang Z, Going SB, editors. Human body composition. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2005. p. 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. 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. Annals of the ICRP. 2002;32(3–4):18–9, 72–6, 205–6.

  11. Shen W, Wang Z, Punyanita M, Lei J, Sinav A, Kral JG, et al. Adipose tissue quantification by imaging methods: a proposed classification. Obes Res. 2003;11(1):5–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. 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 

  14. 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 

  15. 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 

  16. 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Kullberg J, Brandberg J, Angelhed JE, Frimmel H, Bergelin E, Strid L, et al. Whole-body adipose tissue analysis: comparison of MRI, CT and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(974):123–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim WH, Kim CG, Kim D-W. 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. 2012;46(4):294–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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: J Int Assoc tudy of Obes. 1994;18(2):79–83.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hanneman SK. Design, analysis, and interpretation of method-comparison studies. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2008;19(2):223–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cheymol G. Effects of obesity on pharmacokinetics implications for drug therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000;39(3):215–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Morgan DJ, Bray KM. Lean body mass as a predictor of drug dosage. Implications for drug therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1994;26(4):292–307.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kelly M. SUV: Advancing Comparability and Accuracy. 2009. http://www.medical.siemens.com/siemens/en_US/gg_nm_FBAs/files/whtpap/wp_09_trued_suv_supporting_better_accuracy_and_comparability.pdf. Accessed December 29 2011.

  27. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology. 1999;213(2):521–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim WH, Kim CG, Kim D-W. Comparison of SUVs normalized by lean body mass determined by CT with those normalized by lean body mass estimated by predictive equations in normal tissues. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;46(3):182–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim CG, Kim WH, Kim D-W, editors. Direct determination of individual lean body mass by using CT image data in 18F-FDG PET/CT studies: Comparison with lean body mass estimated by using various predictive equations. SNM Annual Meeting; 2011 June 7, 2011; San Antonio, Texas.

  30. Erselcan T, Turgut B, Dogan D, Ozdemir S. Lean body mass-based standardized uptake value, derived from a predictive equation, might be misleading in PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29(12):1630–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chan T. Computerized method for automatic evaluation of lean body mass from PET/CT: comparison with predictive equations. J Nucl Med: Off Publ So Nucl Med. 2012;53(1):130–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Wonkwang University in 2011.

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

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

  2. Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, 344-2 Shinyong-Dong, Iksan, 570-711, Korea

    Chang Guhn Kim & Dae-Weung Kim

Authors
  1. Chang Guhn Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Woo Hyoung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Myoung Hyoun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. 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, C.G., Kim, W.H., Kim, M.H. et al. Direct Determination of Lean Body Mass by CT in F-18 FDG PET/CT Studies: Comparison with Estimates Using Predictive Equations. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47, 98–103 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-013-0207-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-013-0207-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation