4.7 Article

Imaging of sarcopenia: old evidence and new insights

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 2199-2208

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06573-2

关键词

Sarcopenia; Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; Multidetector computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ultrasonography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date, sarcopenia is considered a patient-specific imaging biomarker able to predict clinical outcomes. Several imaging modalities, including dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), and ultrasound (US), can be used to assess muscle mass and quality and to achieve the diagnosis of sarcopenia. With different extent, all these modalities can provide quantitative data, being thus reproducible and comparable over time. DXA is the one most commonly used in clinical practice, with the advantages of being accurate and widely available, and also being the only radiological tool with accepted cutoff values to diagnose sarcopenia. CT and MR are considered the reference standards, allowing the evaluation of muscle quality and fatty infiltration, but their application is so far mostly limited to research. US has been always regarded as a minor tool in sarcopenia and has never gained enough space. To date, CT is probably the easiest and most promising modality, although limited by the long time needed for muscle segmentation. Also, the absence of validated thresholds for CT measurements of myosteatosis requires that future studies should focus on this point. Radiologists have the great potential of becoming pivotal in the context of sarcopenia. We highly master imaging modalities and know perfectly how to apply them to different organs and clinical scenarios. Similarly, radiologists should master the culture of sarcopenia, and its clinical aspects and relevant implications for patient care. The medical and scientific radiological community should promote specific educational course to spread awareness among professionals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据