TY - JOUR
T1 - Multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for estimation of fat-free mass in colorectal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy
AU - Palle, Stine Skov
AU - Tang Møllehave, Line
AU - Kadkhoda, Zahra Taheri
AU - Johansen, Susanne
AU - Larsen, Lisbeth
AU - Hansen, Janne Willer
AU - Jensen, Nikolaj K G
AU - Elingaard, Anette O
AU - Møller, Alice H
AU - Larsen, Karen
AU - Andersen, Jens Rikardt
N1 - CURIS 2016 NEXS 378
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Background: Changes in body composition in cancer patients during chemotherapy are associated with treatment related toxicities or mortalities. Thus, it is relevant to identify accessible, relatively inexpensive, portable and reliable tools for evaluation of body composition in cancer patients during the course of their treatments. Objective: To examine relationships between single cross-sectional thighs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), skeletal muscle mass (SM) as reference and multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) fat free mass (FFM) in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Design: In an observational, prospective study we examine the relationships between single cross-sectional thighs MRI (T1-weighted (1.5 T) SM compared to FFM BIA (8-electrodes multi-frequency Tanita MC780MA)) and FFM skin-fold thickness (ST) (4-points (Harpenden, Skinfold Caliper)) and SM equation for non-obese persons from Lee et al. 2000 (L2000) (based on age, height, weight, sex and race). FFM and SM (kg) were calculated based on either area (MRI) or weight.Results: 18 CRC patients (10 males and 8 females) with mean (SD) age 67 yr (6) were measured at baseline, and 13 were available for follow-up. BIA overestimated FFM kg for all 31 measurements with mean (SD) 18.0 kg (6.0) compared to the MRI. ST overestimated FFM kg with mean 12.4 kg (6.2) and L2000 underestimated SM kg in 18 measurements and overestimated in 13 with a total mean of −4.3 kg (6.8). Conclusions BIA and ST were the best alternatives to MRI as they showed constant and thereby correctable errors. The equation, L2000, carried the smallest average measurement error but it was non-constant.
AB - Background: Changes in body composition in cancer patients during chemotherapy are associated with treatment related toxicities or mortalities. Thus, it is relevant to identify accessible, relatively inexpensive, portable and reliable tools for evaluation of body composition in cancer patients during the course of their treatments. Objective: To examine relationships between single cross-sectional thighs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), skeletal muscle mass (SM) as reference and multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) fat free mass (FFM) in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Design: In an observational, prospective study we examine the relationships between single cross-sectional thighs MRI (T1-weighted (1.5 T) SM compared to FFM BIA (8-electrodes multi-frequency Tanita MC780MA)) and FFM skin-fold thickness (ST) (4-points (Harpenden, Skinfold Caliper)) and SM equation for non-obese persons from Lee et al. 2000 (L2000) (based on age, height, weight, sex and race). FFM and SM (kg) were calculated based on either area (MRI) or weight.Results: 18 CRC patients (10 males and 8 females) with mean (SD) age 67 yr (6) were measured at baseline, and 13 were available for follow-up. BIA overestimated FFM kg for all 31 measurements with mean (SD) 18.0 kg (6.0) compared to the MRI. ST overestimated FFM kg with mean 12.4 kg (6.2) and L2000 underestimated SM kg in 18 measurements and overestimated in 13 with a total mean of −4.3 kg (6.8). Conclusions BIA and ST were the best alternatives to MRI as they showed constant and thereby correctable errors. The equation, L2000, carried the smallest average measurement error but it was non-constant.
KW - Bioelectrical impedance analysis
KW - Body composition
KW - Colorectal cancer
KW - Fat-free mass
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
U2 - 10.1016/j.clnesp.2016.09.003
DO - 10.1016/j.clnesp.2016.09.003
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 28531456
AN - SCOPUS:84993990000
VL - 16
SP - 8
EP - 15
JO - Clinical Nutrition ESPEN
JF - Clinical Nutrition ESPEN
SN - 2405-4577
ER -