It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for visceral adipose tissue (VAT) assessment is used as an alternative to computed tomography (CT) for research purposes in apparently healthy and clinical populations. It is unknown whether DXA is comparable to CT among cancer survivors, especially in cases where VAT assessment may be affected by treatment history and side effects and become more challenging to assess, such as a history of surgical gastrointestinal resection and/or ascites. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of agreement between DXA and CT when assessing VAT area and volume among cancer survivors. One hundred Gastrointestinal and pancreatic cancer survivors underwent abdominal and pelvis CT and whole-body DXA within 48 hours. Bland-Altman analysis revealed that in women and men, DXA VAT-area estimates were larger and smaller, respectively, and was consistently smaller in estimates for VAT-volume. Correlations from linear regression analysis revealed statistically significant positive correlations between measurement methods. Overall, while DXA VAT estimates are highly correlated with CT VAT estimates, DXA estimates show substantial bias which indicates the two methods are not interchangeable in this population. Further research is warranted with a larger, more homogeneous sample to develop better estimates of the bias.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Behavioral Science, Houston, TX, USA; Huntsman Cancer Institute, Cancer Control and Population Sciences Program, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; University of Utah, Department of Health, Kinesiology and Recreation, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
2 University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston, TX, USA
3 University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Houston, TX, USA
4 University of Utah, Department of Health, Kinesiology and Recreation, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
5 University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Biostatistics, Houston, TX, USA
6 University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Houston, TX, USA
7 University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Behavioral Science, Houston, TX, USA