Why the study?
The feasibility of texture analysis of epicardial fat and thoracic subcutaneous fat in patients undergoing cardiac CT had not been established.
Does texture analysis of epicardial and thoracic subcutaneous fat on cardiac CT reveal different radiomic features based on BMI?
Does texture analysis of epicardial and thoracic subcutaneous fat on cardiac CT reveal different radiomic features based on BMI?
Texture analysis of epicardial and thoracic subcutaneous fat on cardiac CT is feasible and identifies distinct radiomic features associated with higher BMI.
Texture analysis of epicardial fat on CCT merits validation; leaves open its role in cardiovascular risk stratification.
Introduction The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of texture analysis of epicardial fat (EF) and thoracic subcutaneous fat (TSF) in patients undergoing cardiac CT (CCT). Materials and methods We compared a consecutive population of 30 patients with BMI ≤25 kg/m 2 (Group A, 60.6 ± 13.7 years) with a control population of 30 patients with BMI >25 kg/m 2 (Group B, 63.3 ± 11 years). A dedicated computer application for quantification of EF and a texture analysis application for the study of EF and TSF were employed. Results The volume of EF was higher in group B (mean 116.1 cm 3 vs. 86.3 cm 3 , p = 0.014), despite no differences were found neither in terms of mean density (−69.5 ± 5 HU vs. −68 ± 5 HU, p = 0.28), nor in terms of quartiles distribution (Q1, p = 0.83; Q2, p = 0.22, Q3, p = 0.83, Q4, p = 0.34). The discriminating parameters of the histogram class were mean (p = 0.02), 0,1st (p = 0.001), 10 th (p = 0.002), and 50 th percentiles (p = 0.02). DifVarnc was the discriminating parameter of the co-occurrence matrix class (p = 0.007). The TSF thickness was 15 ± 6 mm in group A and 19.5 ± 5 mm in group B (p = 0.003). The TSF had a mean density of −97 ± 19 HU in group A and −95.8 ± 19 HU in group B (p = 0.75). The discriminating parameters of texture analysis were 10 th (p = 0.03), 50 th (p = 0.01), 90 th percentiles (p = 0.04), S(0,1)SumAverg (p = 0.02), S(1,-1)SumOfSqs (p = 0.02), S(3,0)Contrast (p = 0.03), S(3,0)SumAverg (p = 0.02), S(4,0)SumAverg (p = 0.04), Horzl_RLNonUni (p = 0.02), and Vertl_LngREmph (p = 0.0005). Conclusions Texture analysis provides distinctive radiomic parameters of EF and TSF. EF and TSF had different radiomic features as the BMI varies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agnese et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: