Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 10/2020

01-10-2020 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Musculoskeletal

Speed of sound ultrasound: comparison with proton density fat fraction assessed with Dixon MRI for fat content quantification of the lower extremity

Authors: Lisa Ruby, Ahmet Kunut, Dominik N. Nakhostin, Florian A. Huber, Tim Finkenstaedt, Thomas Frauenfelder, Sergio J. Sanabria, Marga B. Rominger

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare speed of sound (SoS) ultrasound (US) of the calves with Dixon magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for fat content quantification.

Materials and methods

The study was approved by the local ethics committee. Fifty calf muscles of 35 women (age range 22–81 years) prospectively underwent an US and subsequent MRI (Dixon sequence) examination as well as body weight and impedance fat measurements. SoS (in m/s) was calculated positioning a reflector on the opposite side of a conventional US machine probe with the calf in between. Fiducial nitroglycerin markers were placed on the calf at the reflector and US probe end positions for later registration of the US sonification volumetric section. An automatic segmentation algorithm separated MRI adipose tissue, muscle and bone regions. MRI fat fraction of the entire leg slice (total) and intramuscular and adipose tissue fat fraction were calculated and correlation analysis and correlation coefficient comparison were performed.

Results

Median SoS demonstrated a very strong (r = − 0.83 (95% CI − 0.90; − 0.72); p < 0.001) correlation with MRI total fat fraction, a strong (r = − 0.61 (95% CI − 0.76; − 0.40); p < 0.001) correlation with MRI adipose tissue fat fraction and a moderate (r = − 0.54 (95% CI − 0.71; − 0.31); p < 0.001) correlation with MRI intramuscular fat fraction. Impedance body fat percentage correlated strongly with SoS (r = − 0.72 (95% CI − 0.85; − 0.51); p < 0.001) and MRI total fat fraction (r = 0.61 (95% CI 0.34; 0.78); p < 0.001). For electrical impedance, significantly lower correlations (p = 0.033) were found for MRI total fat fraction compared with SoS.

Conclusions

Correlations of SoS with Dixon MRI fat fraction measurements were very strong to moderate.

Key Points

• Correlations of speed of sound with Dixon MRI fat fraction measurements of the same body location were very strong to moderate.
• Speed of sound measurements showed a high repeatability.
• Speed of sound provides a sufficient discrimination range for fat fraction estimates.
Literature
1.
Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM et al (2010) Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 39:412–423CrossRef
2.
Belarmino G, Torrinhas RS, Sala P et al (2018) A new anthropometric index for body fat estimation in patients with severe obesity. BMC Obes 5:25CrossRef
3.
Gonzalez MC, Barbosa-Silva TG, Heymsfield SB (2018) Bioelectrical impedance analysis in the assessment of sarcopenia. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 21:366–374CrossRef
4.
Messina C, Maffi G, Vitale JA, Ulivieri FM, Guglielmi G, Sconfienza LM (2018) Diagnostic imaging of osteoporosis and sarcopenia: a narrative review. Quant Imaging Med Surg 8:86–99CrossRef
5.
Sergi G, Trevisan C, Veronese N, Lucato P, Manzato E (2016) Imaging of sarcopenia. Eur J Radiol 85:1519–1524CrossRef
6.
Dixon WT (1984) Simple proton spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 153:189–194CrossRef
7.
Ma J (2008) Dixon techniques for water and fat imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:543–558CrossRef
8.
Wokke BH, Bos C, Reijnierse M et al (2013) Comparison of Dixon and T1-weighted MR methods to assess the degree of fat infiltration in Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:619–624CrossRef
9.
Burakiewicz J, Sinclair CDJ, Fischer D, Walter GA, Kan HE, Hollingsworth KG (2017) Quantifying fat replacement of muscle by quantitative MRI in muscular dystrophy. J Neurol 264:2053–2067CrossRef
10.
Noble JJ, Keevil SF, Totman J, Charles-Edwards GD (2014) In vitro and in vivo comparison of two-, three- and four-point Dixon techniques for clinical intramuscular fat quantification at 3 T. Br J Radiol 87:20130761CrossRef
11.
Fischer MA, Pfirrmann CW, Espinosa N, Raptis DA, Buck FM (2014) Dixon-based MRI for assessment of muscle-fat content in phantoms, healthy volunteers and patients with achillodynia: comparison to visual assessment of calf muscle quality. Eur Radiol 24:1366–1375CrossRef
12.
Nardo L, Karampinos DC, Lansdown DA et al (2014) Quantitative assessment of fat infiltration in the rotator cuff muscles using water-fat MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:1178–1185CrossRef
13.
Reeder SB, Hu HH, Sirlin CB (2012) Proton density fat-fraction: a standardized MR-based biomarker of tissue fat concentration. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:1011–1014CrossRef
14.
Smith AC, Parrish TB, Abbott R et al (2014) Muscle-fat MRI: 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla versus histology. Muscle Nerve 50:170–176CrossRef
15.
Szabo TL (2004) Diagnostic ultrasound imaging: inside out, 1st edn. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington
16.
Sanabria SJ, Martini K, Freystatter G et al (2019) Speed of sound ultrasound: a pilot study on a novel technique to identify sarcopenia in seniors. Eur Radiol 29:3–12CrossRef
17.
Sanabria SJ, Goksel O, Martini K et al (2018) Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: a novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening? Eur Radiol 28:3165–3175CrossRef
18.
Dioguardi Burgio M, Imbault M, Ronot M et al (2019) Ultrasonic adaptive sound speed estimation for the diagnosis and quantification of hepatic steatosis: a pilot study. Ultraschall Med 40:722–733CrossRef
19.
Wagner D, Marsoner K, Tomberger A et al (2018) Low skeletal muscle mass outperforms the Charlson comorbidity index in risk prediction in patients undergoing pancreatic resections. Eur J Surg Oncol 44:658–663CrossRef
20.
Rier HN, Jager A, Sleijfer S, van Rosmalen J, Kock M, Levin MD (2017) Low muscle attenuation is a prognostic factor for survival in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with first line palliative chemotherapy. Breast 31:9–15CrossRef
21.
Ruby L, Sanabria SJ, Obrist AS et al (2019) Breast density assessment in young women with ultrasound based on speed of sound: influence of the menstrual cycle. Medicine (Baltimore) 98:e16123CrossRef
22.
Forsgren MF, West J (2019) Rapid body composition measurements reveal detailed metabolic changes in large scale population studies. MAGNETOM Flash 72
23.
Rafael C, Gonzalez REW (2018) Digital image processing. Pearson Education Limited
24.
Stewart A (2010) Basic statistics and epidemiology: a practical guide, 3rd edn. Radcliffe Pub, Abingdon
25.
Preacher KJ (2013) Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with one variable in common (computer software). Available from http://​quantpsy.​org. Accessed 20 Dec 2019
26.
Steiger JH (1980) Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol Bull 87:245–251CrossRef
27.
M. G. Kendall AS (1973) The advanced theory of statistics, volume 2: inference and relationship. Griffin
28.
Grimm A, Meyer H, Nickel MD et al (2018) Repeatability of Dixon magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for quantitative muscle fat assessments in the thigh. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 9:1093–1100CrossRef
29.
Gluer CC, Blake G, Lu Y, Blunt BA, Jergas M, Genant HK (1995) Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 5:262–270CrossRef
30.
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRef
31.
Derstine BA, Holcombe SA, Ross BE, Wang NC, Su GL, Wang SC (2018) Skeletal muscle cutoff values for sarcopenia diagnosis using T10 to L5 measurements in a healthy US population. Sci Rep 8:11369CrossRef
32.
Glide C, Duric N, Littrup P (2007) Novel approach to evaluating breast density utilizing ultrasound tomography. Med Phys 34:744–753CrossRef
33.
Del Grande F, Santini F, Herzka DA et al (2014) Fat-suppression techniques for 3-T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Radiographics 34:217–233CrossRef
34.
Schlaffke L, Rehmann R, Rohm M et al (2019) Multi-center evaluation of stability and reproducibility of quantitative MRI measures in healthy calf muscles. NMR Biomed 32:e4119PubMed
35.
Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J et al (2019) Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 48:601CrossRef
36.
Perkisas S, Baudry S, Bauer J et al (2018) Application of ultrasound for muscle assessment in sarcopenia: towards standardized measurements. Eur Geriatr Med 9:739–757CrossRef
37.
Zhao YZ, Gan YG, Zhou JL et al (2019) Accuracy of multi-echo Dixon sequence in quantification of hepatic steatosis in Chinese children and adolescents. World J Gastroenterol 25:1513–1523CrossRef
38.
Farrow M, Grainger AJ, Tan AL et al (2019) Normal values and test-retest variability of stimulated-echo diffusion tensor imaging and fat fraction measurements in the muscle. Br J Radiol 92:20190143CrossRef
39.
Metadata
Title
Speed of sound ultrasound: comparison with proton density fat fraction assessed with Dixon MRI for fat content quantification of the lower extremity
Authors
Lisa Ruby
Ahmet Kunut
Dominik N. Nakhostin
Florian A. Huber
Tim Finkenstaedt
Thomas Frauenfelder
Sergio J. Sanabria
Marga B. Rominger
Publication date
01-10-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06885-8

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

European Radiology 10/2020 Go to the issue

Interventional

The safety and efficacy of balloon-occluded transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma refractory to conventional transcatheter arterial chemoembolization

Oncology

Diagnostic performance of conventional and advanced imaging modalities for assessing newly diagnosed cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Magnetic Resonance

Intramesenteric dynamic contrast pediatric MR lymphangiography: initial experience and comparison with intranodal and intrahepatic MR lymphangiography

Magnetic Resonance

Differentiation of renal cell carcinoma subtypes through MRI-based radiomics analysis

Contrast Media

Is there association between statin usage and contrast-associated acute kidney injury after intravenous administration of iodine-based contrast media in enhanced computed tomography?

Musculoskeletal

Combined use of virtual monochromatic images and projection-based metal artifact reduction methods in evaluation of total knee arthroplasty