Key result
Upright MDCT fat area yields 92% sensitivity for metabolic syndrome, outperforming standard waist circumference.
Why the study?
Upright MDCT was clinically established, but its utility compared with manual waist circumference and supine MDCT for assessing metabolic disorders and diagnosing MetS had not been directly compared.
Does upright MDCT improve the diagnostic capability for metabolic syndrome compared to manual waist circumference and supine MDCT in a health checkup cohort?
Cross-Sectional (n=47)
Single-blind (radiologists blinded to clinical information and CT system)
No
Does upright MDCT improve the diagnostic capability for metabolic syndrome compared to manual waist circumference and supine MDCT in a health checkup cohort?
Absolute Event Rate: 92% vs 68%
p-value: p=<0.05
Upright MDCT-derived visceral and total fat areas are more sensitive than manual waist circumference and supine MDCT for identifying metabolic syndrome.
Upright MDCT may aid MetS assessment in health checkups; leaves open diagnostic superiority to supine MDCT or WC.
Purpose Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is screened for or assessed by manual waist circumference (WC) measurements or adipose tissue evaluation using supine multidetector CT (MDCT). Currently, upright MDCT was clinically established and tested for different clinical aims. The purpose of this study was to directly compare the utility of metabolic disorder assessments and the diagnosis of MetS among WC, upright MDCT, and supine MDCT in a Japanese health checkup test cohort. Materials and methods This study cohort consisted of 47 consecutive subjects who underwent WC measurements, blood tests, upright MDCT, and supine MDCT on the same day. In each subject, the total fat area (TFA), subcutaneous fat area (SFA), visceral fat area (VFA), and visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio (VSR) were semi-automatically assessed using upright MDCT and supine MDCT data. To compare each index on both CTs, as well as manual WC measurements between the MetS and non-MetS groups, Student’s t -test was performed. Univariate regression analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between each index and blood test results. Subsequently, receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-based positive tests were performed. Finally, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were compared among all indexes from both CTs, and a manual WC measurement evaluation was conducted using McNemar’s test. Results Some indices showed significant differences between two groups ( p < 0.05). All indices shows significant correlations with BMI, TG, HDL-cholesterol, uric acid, glucose, HbA1c, insulin, HOMA-IR, GOT (or AST), GPT (or ALT), or creatinine (manual WC measurement: − 0.58 ≤ r ≤ 0.87, p < 0.05; supine MDCT: − 0.61 ≤ r ≤ 0.84, p < 0.05; upright MDCT: − 0.64 ≤ r ≤ 0.91, p < 0.05). TFA and VFA on upright MDCT had significantly higher sensitivities than WCs determined from manual and supine MDCT as well as the VSR ( p < 0.05). Conclusion Upright MDCT-derived adipose tissue indices showed preliminary potential for assessing metabolic syndrome, but larger prospective studies are needed to validate their clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ohno et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Metabolic Syndrome (n=47). Upright MDCT-derived adipose tissue indices (TFA and VFA) vs. Manual waist circumference and supine MDCT was evaluated on Sensitivity for diagnosing metabolic syndrome (p=<0.05). Total fat area and visceral fat area measured by upright MDCT demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (92%) for diagnosing metabolic syndrome compared to manual waist circumference (68%) and supine MDCT waist circumference (68%) (p < 0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: