Advancing body composition assessment in patients with cancer: First comparisons of traditional versus multicompartment models

•4C body composition modeling reveals hydration variations in patients with cancer.•Compared to a 4C model, DXA is preferred for clinical body composition.•Regional lean soft tissue by DXA is higher than that predicted by abdominal CT scan.•Differences between DXA and CT result in a lower muscle mass prevalence by DXA.•More research is needed to understand technology-specific thresholds for low muscle. Measurement of body composition using computed tomography (CT) scans may be a viable clinical tool for low muscle mass assessment in oncology. However, longitudinal assessments are often infeasible with CT. Clinically accessible body composition technologies can be used to track changes in fat-free mass (FFM) or muscle, though their accuracy may be impacted by cancer-related physiological changes. The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement among accessible body composition method with criterion methods for measures of whole-body FFM measurements and, when possible, muscle mass for the classification of low muscle in patients with cancer. Patients with colorectal cancer were recruited to complete measures of whole-body DXA, air displacement plethysmography (ADP), and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). These measures were used alone, or in combination to construct the criterion multicompartment (4C) mode for estimating FFM. Patients also underwent abdominal CT scans as part of routine clinical assessment. Agreement of each method with 4C model was analyzed using mean constant error (CE = criterion – alternative), linear regression including root mean square error (RMSE), Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) and mean percentage difference (MPD). Additionally, appendicular lean soft tissue index (ALSTI) measured by DXA and predicted by CT were compared for the absolute agreement, while the ALSTI values and skeletal muscle index by CT were assessed for agreement on the classification of low muscle mass. Forty-five patients received all measures for the 4C model and 25 had measures within proximity of clinical CT measures. Compared to 4C, DXA outperformed ADP and BIA by showing the strongest overall agreement (CE = 1.96 kg, RMSE = 2.45 kg, MPD = 98.15 ± 2.38%), supporting its use for body composition assessment in patients with cancer. However, CT cutoffs for skeletal muscle index or CT-estimated ALSTI were lower than DXA ALSTI (average 1.0 ± 1.2 kg/m2) with 24.0% to 32.0% of patients having a different low muscle classification by CT when compa