The Value of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Imaging in Identifying Diagnostic Markers of Sarcopenia in Patients with Cancer

Huang, Ying-Tzu; Tsai, Yi-Shan; Lin, Peng-Chan; Yeh, Yu-Min; Hsu, Ya-Ting; Wu, Pei-Ying; Shen, Meng-Ru

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1819841

Disease Markers

On this page

Abstract Introduction Literature Review Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Imaging Disease Markers as a Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Educational Tool 2021

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 1819841 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1819841

The Value of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Imaging in Identifying Diagnostic Markers of Sarcopenia in Patients with Cancer

Ying-Tzu Huang,¹Yi-Shan Tsai,²Peng-Chan Lin,¹Yu-Min Yeh,¹Ya-Ting Hsu,³Pei-Ying Wu,⁴and Meng-Ru Shen⁴

Academic Editor: Zhongjie Shi

Received30 Apr 2021

Revised15 Feb 2022

Accepted14 Mar 2022

Published29 Mar 2022

Abstract

Sarcopenia is defined as the loss of skeletal muscle mass and muscle function. It is common in patients with malignancies and often associated with adverse clinical outcomes. The presence of sarcopenia in patients with cancer is determined by body composition, and recently, radiologic technology for the accurate estimation of body composition is under development. Artificial intelligence- (AI-) assisted image measurement facilitates the detection of sarcopenia in clinical practice. Sarcopenia is a prognostic factor for patients with cancer, and confirming its presence helps to recognize those patients at the greatest risk, which provides a guide for designing individualized cancer treatments. In this review, we examine the recent literature (2017-2021) on AI-assisted image assessment of body composition and sarcopenia, seeking to synthesize current information on the mechanism and the importance of sarcopenia, its diagnostic image markers, and the interventions for sarcopenia in the medical care of patients with cancer. We concluded that AI-assisted image analysis is a reliable automatic technique for segmentation of abdominal adipose tissue. It has the potential to improve diagnosis of sarcopenia and facilitates identification of oncology patients at the greatest risk, supporting individualized prevention planning and treatment evaluation. The capability of AI approaches in analyzing series of big data and extracting features beyond manual skills would no doubt progressively provide impactful information and greatly refine the standard for assessing sarcopenia risk in patients with cancer.

1. Introduction

Sarcopenia was first introduced by Dr. Irwin Rosenberg in 1989, who described it as “age-related loss of skeletal muscle” [1]. It was initially regarded as the progressive decline in skeletal muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance associated with aging [2], but the definition and management of sarcopenia have expanded in recent years. In today’s broader view, besides associations with aging, the shared risk factors for development of sarcopenia include chronic diseases, nutrition deficiencies, physical inactivity, hormonal changes, insulin resistance, loss of the neurons that stimulate muscle, and fat infiltration into muscle [3]. Among possible comorbidities, malignancy is a major category of disease-related sarcopenia. The causes of muscle loss in patients with cancer are multifactorial, especially in older adults [4]. Gender differences have been found in the prevalence of sarcopenia for people younger than 70 years and those older than 80 years; sarcopenia is diagnosed more often in women in those aged <70 years, while among those aged >80 years, more men will have sarcopenia than women [5]. This gender difference is clearly influenced by age, and sarcopenia must be considered when evaluating people of all ages who have cancer.

The etiology of sarcopenia in patients with cancer may vary between different ages and genders and can be associated with genetic predisposition, underlying comorbidities, reduced physical performance, and age-related declines in various hormones. Cancer-induced inflammatory cytokines and anorexia that cause decreased protein intake and synthesis and increased protein degradation may also be markers of sarcopenia in cancer patients. Treatment-related causes may include the side effects of chemotherapy, surgery, or radiotherapy [4, 6].

Sarcopenia is a prognostic factor for patients with cancer, and confirming its presence helps to recognize those patients at the greatest risk and to guide individualized cancer treatment [7]. The diagnosis of sarcopenia is determined through the assessment of body composition (analysis of adipose and muscle tissue components), and recently, artificial intelligence- (AI-) assisted image measurement is being used to facilitate the detection of sarcopenia in clinical practice [8].

The purpose of this review was to synthesize current information in recent studies addressing AI-assisted imaging assessment of body composition and sarcopenia, particularly to gain a clearer understanding of the mechanism and the importance of sarcopenia in cancer and its diagnostic image markers and interventions for sarcopenia in the medical care of patients with cancer.

2. Literature Review

We searched the recent literature in PubMed from 2017 to 2021 using (“deep learning”[MeSH Terms] OR (“deep”[All Fields] AND “learning”[All Fields]) OR “deep learning”[All Fields]) AND (“sarcopenia”[MeSH Terms] OR “sarcopenia”[All Fields]). A total of 28 articles addressing AI-assisted imaging assessment of body composition and sarcopenia were found, of which 20 reporting DICE coefficients were finally included for review. They are discussed below along with other supportive studies for background, focusing on cancer-related sarcopenia and the current status of AI-assisted imaging in the evaluation of sarcopenia in cancer patients.

2.1. The Definition/Mechanism of Sarcopenia in Cancer Patients

Complex metabolic pathways are involved in the development process of sarcopenia. Several discriminating metabolites have been identified and investigated as potential biomarkers for the presence of sarcopenia. For example, one study demonstrated that low levels of plasma lysophosphatidylcholine 18 : 2 predict a greater decline of gait speed in older adults [9]. Another study reported that increased asparagine, aspartic acid, citrulline, ethanolamine, glutamic acid, sarcosine, and taurine are found in older adult patients with sarcopenia [10]. As for patients with cancer, a serum and urine metabolomics study found that cancer-related metabolic reprograming may represent a distinct diagnostic model [11].

2.2. Diagnostic Image Markers for Sarcopenia

In clinical practice, assessment techniques for sarcopenia include handgrip strength to measure muscle strength and gait speed and chair stand tests to evaluate physical performance [12]. Bioimpedance analysis and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry are the most common diagnostic tools for confirmation of muscle quantity and quality [13]. In the field of oncology, the use of abdominal computed tomography (CT) to measure body composition helps to identify sarcopenia in patients with cancer by providing precise and simplified data for describing sarcopenia and its correlation with clinical factors [14]. Thus, the performance of routine abdominal CT at cancer diagnosis, posttreatment evaluation, and regular follow-up provides the means for gauging body composition throughout the course of cancer.

The cross-sectional area (CSA) of muscle tissue at the level of the 3^rd lumbar spine (L3) provides reproducible evaluation of muscle size in cancer patients without the need for additional examinations. The measurements collected from a single slice CT image reveal solid evidence that correlates strongly with whole-body adipose tissue and skeletal muscle [15–17]. The common method is to manually draw the total CSA of all muscle groups at L3 or to quantify the CSA using thresholds of Hounsfield units (HU) from -29 to 150 for skeletal muscle using the available software [18]. The third lumbar vertebra, L3, is chosen because it is the current gold standard for quantification of muscle mass by obtaining parameters from the analysis of a single-slice CT scan [19]. The cross-sectional skeletal muscle area (SMA) calculated at the level of L3 can correctly estimate total body muscle mass [17]. A review has shown that attempts to use alternate vertebral levels to L3 (cervical, thoracic, and lumbar CT slices) for evaluating SMA in cancer patients have shown no validation of whole-body skeletal muscle mass in various types of cancer (lung, head, and neck) and a lack of consensus [20]. The skeletal muscle index (SMI, cm²/m²) is calculated by dividing the CSA by the square of body height with various cut-off values according to gender and different body mass index ( or <25.0) [21]. The formula used was . The muscle groups for SMI consist of psoas major, paraspinal muscle, and abdominal wall muscles (Figure 1). The solitary muscle indices such as psoas muscle index (PMI) and paravertebral muscle index (PSMI) also achieve good performance for sarcopenia evaluation [16, 22, 23]. The CT-derived measurement of muscle mass is usually evaluated using the method with thresholds of HU from -29 to 150 that will limit the evaluation of myosteatosis (fat infiltrates into muscle) technologically. The patients with higher BMI had greater SMI but lower skeletal muscle density (SMD) [24, 25]. In the future, CT-derived measurement of muscle mass (area) and quality (myosteatosis) could be achieved with fully automated segmentation for contouring of muscle groups using deep learning systems [26].

2.3. The Importance of Sarcopenia in Patients with Cancer

The presence of sarcopenia in older adults may manifest as impaired daily function, disability, increased falls, risk of fractures, loss of independence, poorer quality of life, increased mortality, and high healthcare expenditures [27–31]. In patients with malignancies, sarcopenia is strongly associated with poor oncologic outcomes. A meta-analysis of 4262 participants with ovarian cancer revealed a significant association between the SMI and overall survival (OS) (; hazard ratio (HR): 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-1.20) [32]. Another meta-analysis of 5497 participants with breast cancer reported similar result (pooled HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.25-2.33) [33].

Sarcopenia is also an independent predictor of treatment-related toxicities, including surgical complications, prolonged hospitalization, and more adverse effects of chemotherapy. A cohort study of 234 patients undergoing liver resection for malignant tumors demonstrated that sarcopenic patients had longer hospital stays (10 days vs. 6-8 days; ) and more readmission (8.8% vs. 0-7.7%; ) than those without sarcopenia [34]. A study of 533 patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer receiving a FOLFOX regimen reported that lower muscle mass is associated with early discontinuation of chemotherapy (odds ratio (OR): 2.34; 95% CI: 1.04-5.24; ), treatment delay (OR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.37-3.66; ), and dose reduction (OR: 2.28; 95% CI: 1.19-4.36; ) [35].

Body weight or BMI as an indication of body composition was previously used to predict the clinical outcomes of patients with cancer [36, 37]. Emerging evidence suggests that SMI correlates better with negative outcomes and complications than does BMI. A study of 484 patients with pancreatic cancer showed that the changes in BMI during chemotherapy did not have an impact on OS in patients with maintained SMI values (), while decreases in SMI were associated with poor OS in patients with maintained BMI (HR: 1.502; ) [38]. This can be explained by the fact that patients with the same BMI may have different SMI values due to different amounts of muscle mass and differences in the level of fat infiltration. Similarly, patients with the same body surface area (BSA) but different SMI value receiving the same dose of chemotherapy may have different severity of adverse effects [39, 40].

2.4. Interventions for Sarcopenia within the Medical Care of Patients with Cancer

The prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with cancer ranges widely from 16% to 71%, depending on the definition in various study settings [7]. The understanding of the presence and the progression of sarcopenia helps to identify high-risk patients and guide the development of treatment plans. Since sarcopenia is significantly associated with treatment-related toxicity [34, 35], the dose titration of chemotherapy, the intensity of surgical intervention, and the schedule of postoperative care should be carefully assessed in sarcopenic patients. For the impact of sarcopenia on oncologic outcomes, it also implies the physician about the disease explanation, prognosis expectation, and treatment decision-making.

The interventions for sarcopenia in patients with cancer include nutritional support, resistance exercise, and specific treatments for sarcopenia and the underlying disease [6, 41–45]. Many studies support the use of nutritional supplements [45], pharmacologic agents to increase muscle mass [44], and exercise programs [42]. Some studies show conflicting results for interventions for increasing muscle mass [6, 41], and the impact of those interventions on clinical outcomes is still being investigated. Prospective studies on interventions for sarcopenia in patients with cancer are limited.

2.5. Medical AI Perspectives in the Diagnosis of Sarcopenia

The present review identified a total of 20 articles reporting DICE similarity coefficient scores [16, 19, 46–63]. Table 1 lists the included articles with the population characteristics and segmentation approaches. The reported CT threshold and DICE coefficients of these included studies ranged between 0.93 and 0.98 (Table 2), indicating great promise in the clinical application of AI-assisted imaging. However, as shown in Tables 1 and 2, there is currently no standardized methodology for assessment of sarcopenia. The slicing regions, methods of segmentation, tissues of interest, and ground truth applied varied between the studies. A total of 18 articles used deep learning methods to perform automated segmentation (16 applied fully convolutional networks (FCN) or U-Net, and 2 used ResNet-18). The region of segmentation varied across different systems, but the L3-level axial slice was analyzed most frequently due to its strong correlation with whole-body composition [19]. As reference for segmentation (ground truth), 10 studies reported use of a combination of automated or semiautomated commercial segmentation software or cloud-based annotation tool with manual correction; 1 study specified that expert-labeled annotation was used as ground truth; details of the ground truth reference was not specified in the remaining articles (Table 1). Thirteen studies reported CT threshold HU values. However, the CT threshold is likely affected by whether or not contrast medium was used for imaging. Of the 20 articles reporting DICE scores, 10 articles reported DICE coefficients for skeletal muscle only; in the other 10 articles, tissues including visceral adipose tissue, subcutaneous adipose tissue, and intermuscular adipose tissue were also analyzed. Most of the articles reported training and testing cohort results only; 7 studies performed independent validations (internal or external) (Table 2).

In the evaluation of sarcopenia, abdominal musculature segmentation is accomplished using deep learning with a DICE similarity coefficient of 0.93-0.98 [46, 48]. Successful individual segmentation of different muscle groups for SMI are achieved using a DICE similarity coefficient of 0.82-0.95, consisting of psoas major, quadratus lumborum, erector spinae (paraspinal muscle), and abdominal wall muscles (transversus abdominis muscle, internal and external oblique muscle, and rectus abdominis) [47]. The highly accurate segmentation of individual muscle groups provides an opportunity to assess muscle mass and myosteatosis separately. The area of muscular CSA could be reserved for mass evaluation. Using the cut point of CT HU inside the segmented CSA is aimed at assessing myosteatosis [64]. The CT-derived measurement of myosteatosis is associated with cut points of muscle attenuation less than 41 or less than 33 HU, which is consistent with the most common threshold for low-density muscle (0-30 HU) [64]. Knowledge about changes in body composition during cancer treatments and the disease course is currently lacking. The lack of standardized assessment method to determine muscle mass in cancer patients is evident from the varied cut-off values used in different studies, even for the same cancer type (as reviewed by Rier et al. [65] in 2016). The variations in cut-off value between the same cancer types likely have resulted from the different population characteristics between studies including age, BMI, disease severity, and different methods of evaluation [65]. Recent studies have focused on developing reference diagnostic cut-off values among the normal population. For people under 60 years old, the cut-off SMI value ranged between 40 and 45 in male and 30 and 35 in female (Supplement Table 1) [66–72]. However, the population characteristics were different between these studies, and determination of normal reference cut-off values for different population characteristics using larger series of data via an AI-assisted approach may fasten the development of standardized assessment. AI-assisted body composition measurement would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the sarcopenia evaluation and provides a trend of standardization by which the serial changes in cancer-related sarcopenia are explored [26].

3. Conclusion

In conclusion, the presence of sarcopenia is represented by prognostic and predictive values in patients with cancer. AI-assisted image analysis is a reliable automatic technique for segmentation of abdominal adipose tissue with the potential to improve diagnosis of sarcopenia and facilitates identification of oncology patients at the greatest risk, supporting individualized prevention planning and treatment evaluation. The capability of AI approaches in analyzing series of big data and extracting high-level abstractions beyond manual skills would no doubt progressively provide impactful information and greatly refine the standard for assessing sarcopenia risk in patients with cancer.

Data Availability

No data were used to support this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement Table S1 Normal reference and cut-off for sarcopenia [58, 66, 68–72]. (Supplementary Materials)

References

I. H. Rosenberg, “Sarcopenia: origins and clinical relevance,” The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 990S–991S, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Cruz-Jentoft, G. Bahat, J. Bauer et al., “Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis,” Age and Ageing, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 16–31, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Fielding, B. Vellas, W. J. Evans et al., “Sarcopenia: an undiagnosed condition in older adults. Current consensus definition: prevalence, etiology, and consequences. International working group on sarcopenia,” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 249–256, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. R. Williams, H. N. Rier, A. McDonald, and S. S. Shachar, “Sarcopenia & aging in cancer,” Journal of Geriatric Oncology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 374–377, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kirchengast and J. Huber, “Gender and age differences in lean soft tissue mass and sarcopenia among healthy elderly,” Anthropologischer Anzeiger, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 139–151, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Anjanappa, M. Corden, A. Green et al., “Sarcopenia in cancer: risking more than muscle loss,” Technical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology, vol. 16, pp. 50–57, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Chindapasirt, “Sarcopenia in cancer patients,” Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 16, no. 18, pp. 8075–8077, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Rozynek, I. Kucybała, A. Urbanik, and W. Wojciechowski, “Use of artificial intelligence in the imaging of sarcopenia: a narrative review of current status and perspectives,” Nutrition, vol. 89, article 111227, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Gonzalez-Freire, R. Moaddel, K. Sun et al., “Targeted metabolomics shows low plasma lysophosphatidylcholine 18:2 predicts greater decline of gait speed in older adults: the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging,” The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 62–67, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Calvani, A. Picca, F. Marini et al., “A distinct pattern of circulating amino acids characterizes older persons with physical frailty and sarcopenia: results from the BIOSPHERE Study,” Nutrients, vol. 10, no. 11, p. 1691, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. J. Yang, J. R. Zhao, J. Hao et al., “Serum and urine metabolomics study reveals a distinct diagnostic model for cancer cachexia,” Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 71–85, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. Chen, J. Woo, P. Assantachai et al., “Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia: 2019 consensus update on sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment,” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 300–307.e2, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Rubbieri, E. Mossello, and M. Di Bari, “Techniques for the diagnosis of sarcopenia,” Clinical Cases in Mineral and Bone Metabolism, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 181–184, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Thibault, L. Genton, and C. Pichard, “Body composition: why, when and for who?” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 435–447, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Waduud, P. Adusumilli, M. Drozd et al., “Volumetric versus single slice measurements of core abdominal muscle for sarcopenia,” The British Journal of Radiology, vol. 92, no. 1097, p. 20180434, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Zopfs, K. Bousabarah, S. Lennartz et al., “Evaluating body composition by combining quantitative spectral detector computed tomography and deep learning-based image segmentation,” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 130, article 109153, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Shen, M. Punyanitya, Z. Wang et al., “Total body skeletal muscle and adipose tissue volumes: estimation from a single abdominal cross-sectional image,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 2333–2338, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Ryan, D. G. Power, L. Daly, S. J. Cushen, Ē. Ní Bhuachalla, and C. M. Prado, “Cancer-associated malnutrition, cachexia and sarcopenia: the skeleton in the hospital closet 40 years later,” The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 199–211, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. L. G. C. Ackermans, L. Volmer, L. Wee et al., “Deep learning automated segmentation for muscle and adipose tissue from abdominal computed tomography in polytrauma patients,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 6, p. 2083, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Vangelov, J. Bauer, D. Kotevski, and R. I. Smee, “The use of alternate vertebral levels to L3 in computed tomography scans for skeletal muscle mass evaluation and sarcopenia assessment in patients with cancer: a systematic review,” The British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 722–735, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Nishigori, K. Obama, and Y. Sakai, “Assessment of body composition and impact of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in patients with gastric cancer,” Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 5, p. 22, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Simpson, N. Manu, C. Magee, J. Wilson, S. Moug, and D. Vimalachandran, “Measuring sarcopenia on pre-operative CT in older adults undergoing emergency laparotomy: a comparison of three different calculations,” International Journal of Colorectal Disease, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1095–1102, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Tomov, M. A. Alvi, M. Elminawy et al., “An objective and reliable method for identifying sarcopenia in lumbar spine surgery patients: using morphometric measurements on computed tomography imaging,” Asian Spine Journal, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 814–820, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. S. Weinberg, S. S. Shachar, H. B. Muss et al., “Beyond sarcopenia: characterization and integration of skeletal muscle quantity and radiodensity in a curable breast cancer population,” The Breast Journal, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 278–284, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Xiao, B. J. Caan, E. M. Cespedes Feliciano et al., “The association of medical and demographic characteristics with sarcopenia and low muscle radiodensity in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 615–625, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Dong, “Fully-automated segmentation of muscle measurement on CT in detecting central sarcopenia: a trend of standardization,” Academic Radiology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 321-322, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Cousins, M. A. Petit, M. L. Paudel et al., “Muscle power and physical activity are associated with bone strength in older men: the osteoporotic fractures in men study,” Bone, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 205–211, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. R. Gale, C. N. Martyn, C. Cooper, and A. A. Sayer, “Grip strength, body composition, and mortality,” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 228–235, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Janssen, D. S. Shepard, P. T. Katzmarzyk, and R. Roubenoff, “The healthcare costs of sarcopenia in the United States,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 80–85, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Sayer, H. E. Syddall, H. J. Martin, E. M. Dennison, H. C. Roberts, and C. Cooper, “Is grip strength associated with health-related quality of life? Findings from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study,” Age and Ageing, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 409–415, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Woo, J. Leung, A. Sham, and T. Kwok, “Defining sarcopenia in terms of risk of physical limitations: a 5-year follow-up study of 3,153 Chinese men and women,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 2224–2231, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ubachs, J. Ziemons, I. J. G. Minis-Rutten et al., “Sarcopenia and ovarian cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1165–1174, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. M. Zhang, Q. L. Dou, Y. Zeng, Y. Yang, A. S. K. Cheng, and W. W. Zhang, “Sarcopenia as a predictor of mortality in women with breast cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review,” BMC Cancer, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 172, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Berardi, G. Antonelli, M. Colasanti et al., “Association of sarcopenia and body composition with short-term outcomes after liver resection for malignant tumors,” JAMA Surgery, vol. 155, no. 11, article e203336, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. M. Cespedes Feliciano, V. S. Lee, C. M. Prado et al., “Muscle mass at the time of diagnosis of nonmetastatic colon cancer and early discontinuation of chemotherapy, delays, and dose reductions on adjuvant FOLFOX: the C-SCANS study,” Cancer, vol. 123, no. 24, pp. 4868–4877, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. M. Cespedes Feliciano, C. H. Kroenke, P. T. Bradshaw et al., “Postdiagnosis weight change and survival following a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 44–50, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Greenlee, J. M. Unger, M. LeBlanc, S. Ramsey, and D. L. Hershman, “Association between body mass index and cancer survival in a pooled analysis of 22 clinical trials,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 21–29, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Choi, D. Y. Oh, T. Y. Kim et al., “Skeletal muscle depletion predicts the prognosis of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer undergoing palliative chemotherapy, independent of body mass index,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 10, article e0139749, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Strulov Shachar and G. R. Williams, “The obesity paradox in cancer-moving beyond BMI,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 13–16, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Aubrey, N. Esfandiari, V. E. Baracos et al., “Measurement of skeletal muscle radiation attenuation and basis of its biological variation,” Acta Physiologica (Oxford, England), vol. 210, no. 3, pp. 489–497, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yoshimura, H. Wakabayashi, M. Yamada, H. Kim, A. Harada, and H. Arai, “Interventions for treating sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies,” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 553.e1–553.e16, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. M. Dieli-Conwright, K. S. Courneya, W. Demark-Wahnefried et al., “Effects of aerobic and resistance exercise on metabolic syndrome, sarcopenic obesity, and circulating biomarkers in overweight or obese survivors of breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 875–883, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Vigano, P. Kasvis, J. Di Tomasso, C. Gillis, R. Kilgour, and F. Carli, “Pearls of optimizing nutrition and physical performance of older adults undergoing cancer therapy,” Journal of Geriatric Oncology, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 428–436, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. Wright, E. L. Dillon, W. J. Durham et al., “A randomized trial of adjunct testosterone for cancer-related muscle loss in men and women,” Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 482–496, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. T. Burden, D. J. Gibson, S. Lal et al., “Pre-operative oral nutritional supplementation with dietary advice versus dietary advice alone in weight-losing patients with colorectal cancer: single-blind randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 437–446, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Blanc-Durand, J. B. Schiratti, K. Schutte et al., “Abdominal musculature segmentation and surface prediction from CT using deep learning for sarcopenia assessment,” Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, vol. 101, no. 12, pp. 789–794, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Burns, J. Yao, D. Chalhoub, J. J. Chen, and R. M. Summers, “A machine learning algorithm to estimate sarcopenia on abdominal CT,” Academic Radiology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 311–320, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. T. Paris, P. Tandon, D. K. Heyland et al., “Automated body composition analysis of clinically acquired computed tomography scans using neural networks,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 3049–3055, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. C. Amarasinghe, J. Lopes, J. Beraldo et al., “A deep learning model to automate skeletal muscle area measurement on computed tomography images,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 11, article 580806, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Barnard, J. Tan, B. Roller et al., “Machine learning for automatic paraspinous muscle area and attenuation measures on low-dose chest CT scans,” Academic Radiology, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1686–1694, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Borrelli, R. Kaboteh, O. Enqvist et al., “Artificial intelligence-aided CT segmentation for body composition analysis: a validation study,” European Radiology Experimental, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 11, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Castiglione, E. Somasundaram, L. A. Gilligan, A. T. Trout, and S. Brady, “Automated segmentation of abdominal skeletal muscle on pediatric CT scans using deep learning,” Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 2, article e200130, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Dabiri, K. Popuri, E. M. Cespedes Feliciano, B. J. Caan, V. E. Baracos, and M. F. Beg, “Muscle segmentation in axial computed tomography (CT) images at the lumbar (L3) and thoracic (T4) levels for body composition analysis,” Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, vol. 75, pp. 47–55, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Edwards, A. Chhabra, J. Dormer et al., “Abdominal muscle segmentation from CT using a convolutional neural network,” Proceedings of SPIE The International Society for Optical Engineering, vol. 11317, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
P. M. Graffy, J. Liu, P. J. Pickhardt, J. E. Burns, J. Yao, and R. M. Summers, “Deep learning-based muscle segmentation and quantification at abdominal CT: application to a longitudinal adult screening cohort for sarcopenia assessment,” The British Journal of Radiology, vol. 92, no. 1100, article 20190327, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Hemke, C. G. Buckless, A. Tsao, B. Wang, and M. Torriani, “Deep learning for automated segmentation of pelvic muscles, fat, and bone from CT studies for body composition assessment,” Skeletal Radiology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 387–395, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. H. Hsu, K. Schawkat, S. J. Berkowitz et al., “Artificial intelligence to assess body composition on routine abdominal CT scans and predict mortality in pancreatic cancer- a recipe for your local application,” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 142, article 109834, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kim, S. H. Han, and H. I. Kim, “Detection of sarcopenic obesity and prediction of long-term survival in patients with gastric cancer using preoperative computed tomography and machine learning,” Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 124, no. 8, pp. 1347–1355, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Koitka, L. Kroll, E. Malamutmann, A. Oezcelik, and F. Nensa, “Fully automated body composition analysis in routine CT imaging using 3D semantic segmentation convolutional neural networks,” European Radiology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1795–1804, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Lee, F. M. Troschel, S. Tajmir et al., “Pixel-level deep segmentation: artificial intelligence quantifies muscle on computed tomography for body morphometric analysis,” Journal of Digital Imaging, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 487–498, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Magudia, C. P. Bridge, C. P. Bay et al., “Population-scale CT-based body composition analysis of a large outpatient population using deep learning to derive age-, sex-, and race-specific reference curves,” Radiology, vol. 298, no. 2, pp. 319–329, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Park, Y. Shin, J. Park et al., “Development and validation of a deep learning system for segmentation of abdominal muscle and fat on computed tomography,” Korean Journal of Radiology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 88–100, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Shephard, An Illustrated History of Health and Fitness, from Pre-History to our Post-Modern World, Springer International Publishing, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site
B. Amini, S. P. Boyle, R. D. Boutin, and L. Lenchik, “Approaches to assessment of muscle mass and myosteatosis on computed tomography: a systematic review,” The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, vol. 74, no. 10, pp. 1671–1678, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. N. Rier, A. Jager, S. Sleijfer, A. B. Maier, and M. D. Levin, “The prevalence and prognostic value of low muscle mass in cancer patients: a review of the literature,” The Oncologist, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1396–1409, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Feng, P. Rong, M. Luo, X. Sun, and W. Wang, “Influence of methods used to establish sarcopenia cutoff values for skeletal muscle measures using unenhanced and contrast-enhanced computed tomography images,” JPEN Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1028–1036, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. K. Kim, K. W. Kim, E. H. Kim et al., “Age-related changes in muscle quality and development of diagnostic cutoff points for myosteatosis in lumbar skeletal muscles measured by CT scan,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 4022–4028, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Ufuk and D. Herek, “Reference skeletal muscle mass values at L3 vertebrae level based on computed tomography in healthy Turkish adults,” International Journal of Gerontology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 221–225, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
J. K. Yoon, S. Lee, K. W. Kim et al., “Reference values for skeletal muscle mass at the third lumbar vertebral level measured by computed tomography in a healthy Korean population,” Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 672–677, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. A. Derstine, S. A. Holcombe, R. L. Goulson et al., “Quantifying sarcopenia reference values using lumbar and thoracic muscle areas in a healthy population,” The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 180–185, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. A. Derstine, S. A. Holcombe, B. E. Ross, N. C. Wang, G. L. Su, and S. C. Wang, “Skeletal muscle cutoff values for sarcopenia diagnosis using T10 to L5 measurements in a healthy US population,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 11369, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. van der Werf, J. A. E. Langius, M. A. E. de van der Schueren et al., “Percentiles for skeletal muscle index, area and radiation attenuation based on computed tomography imaging in a healthy Caucasian population,” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 288–296, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Ying-Tzu Huang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

724

Downloads

703

Citations