Use of automated assessment for determining associations of low muscle mass and muscle loss with overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer – A validation study

Abstract

Background: Low muscle mass and skeletal muscle mass (SMM) loss are associated with adverse patient outcomes, but the time-consuming nature of manual SMM quantification prohibits implementation of this metric in clinical practice. Therefore, we assessed the feasibility of automated SMM quantification compared to manual quantification. We evaluated both diagnostic accuracy for low muscle mass and associations of SMM (change) with survival in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Methods: Computed tomography (CT) images from CRC patients enrolled in two clinical studies were analyzed. We compared i) manual vs. automated segmentation of preselected slices at the third lumbar [L3] vertebra (“semi-automated”), and ii) manual L3-slice-selection + manual segmentation vs. automated L3-slice-selection + automated segmentation (“fully-automated”). Automated L3-selection and automated segmentation was performed with Quantib Body Composition v0.2.1. Bland–Altman analyses, within-subject coefficients of variation (WSCVs) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) were used to evaluate the agreement between manual and automatic segmentation. Diagnostic accuracy for low muscle mass (defined by an established sarcopenia cut-off) was calculated with manual assessment as the “gold standard”. Using either manual or automated assessment, Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) were used to study the association between changes in SMM (>5% decrease yes/no) during first-line metastatic CRC treatment and mortality adjusted for prognostic factors. SMM change was also assessed separately in weight-stable (<5%, i.e. occult SMM loss) patients. Results: In total, 1580 CT scans were analyzed, while a subset of 307 scans were analyzed in the fully-automated comparison. Included patients (n = 553) had a mean age of 63 ± 9 years and 39% were female. The semi-automated comparison revealed a bias of −2.41 cm2, 95% limits of agreement [-9.02 to 4.20], a WSCV of 2.25%, and an ICC of 0.99 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.97 to 1.00). The fully-automated comparison method revealed a bias of −0.08 cm2 [-10.91 to 10.75], a WSCV of 2.85% and an ICC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.98 to 0.99). Sensitivity and specificity for low muscle mass were 0.99 and 0.89 for the semi-automated comparison and 0.96 and 0.90 for the fully-automated comparison. SMM decrease was associated with shorter survival in both manual and automated assessment (n = 78/280, HR 1.36 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.80] and n = 89/280, HR 1.38 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.81]). Occult SMM loss was associated with shorter survival in manual assessment, but not significantly in automated assessment (n = 44/263, HR 1.43 [95% CI 1.01 to 2.03] and n = 51/2639, HR 1.23 [95% CI 0.87 to 1.74]). Conclusion: Deep-learning based assessment of SMM at L3 shows reliable performance, enabling the use of CT measures to guide clinical decision making. Implementation in clinical practice helps to identify patients with low muscle mass or (occult) SMM loss who may benefit from lifestyle interventions.