Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Imaging of sarcopenia: old evidence and new insights

  • Musculoskeletal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

Key Points

• DXA is an accurate, reproducible, and widely available imaging modality to evaluate body composition, being the most commonly used radiological tool to diagnose sarcopenia in clinical practice

• CT and MR are the gold standard imaging modalities to assess muscle mass and quality, but no clear cutoff values have been reported to identify sarcopenia, limiting the application of these modalities to research purposes

• US has shown to be accurate in the evaluation of muscle trophism, especially in the thigh, but its current application in sarcopenia is limited

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Abbreviations

ALM:

Appendicular lean mass

ALMI:

Appendicular lean mass index

BC:

Body composition

BMC:

Bone mineral content

CSA:

Cross-sectional area

CT:

Computed tomography

DTI:

Diffusion tensor imaging

DXA:

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

EWGSOP:

European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People

FA:

Fractional anisotropy

FM:

Fat mass

HU:

Hounsfield

LM:

Lean mass

MR:

Magnetic resonance

ROIs:

Regions of interest

SMI:

Skeletal muscle index

US:

Ultrasound

References

  1. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Landi F, Schneider SM et al (2014) Prevalence of and interventions for sarcopenia in ageing adults: a systematic review. Report of the International Sarcopenia Initiative (EWGSOP and IWGS). Age Ageing 43:748–759

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM et al (2010) Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis—report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 39:412–423

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Janssen I, Shepard DS, Katzmarzyk PT, Roubenoff R (2004) The healthcare costs of sarcopenia in the United States. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:80–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenberg IH (1989) Summary comments. Am J Clin Nutr 50:1231–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brioche T, Pagano AF, Py G, Chopard A (2016) Muscle wasting and aging: experimental models, fatty infiltrations, and prevention. Mol Aspects Med 50:56–87

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J et al (2019) Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 48:16–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Correa-de-Araujo R, Hadley E (2014) Skeletal muscle function deficit: a new terminology to embrace the evolving concepts of sarcopenia and age-related muscle dysfunction. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 69:591–594

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sergi G, Trevisan C, Veronese N, Lucato P, Manzato E (2016) Imaging of sarcopenia. Eur J Radiol 85:1519–1524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tosato M, Marzetti E, Cesari M et al (2017) Measurement of muscle mass in sarcopenia: from imaging to biochemical markers. Aging Clin Exp Res 29:19–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vezzoli A, Mrakic-Sposta S, Montorsi M et al (2019) Moderate intensity resistive training reduces oxidative stress and improves muscle mass and function in older individuals. Antioxidants (Basel) 8:E431

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Marty E, Liu Y, Samuel A, Or O, Lane J (2017) A review of sarcopenia: enhancing awareness of an increasingly prevalent disease. Bone 105:276–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Messina C, Maffi G, Vitale JA, Ulivieri FM, Guglielmi G, Sconfienza LM (2018) Diagnostic imaging of osteoporosis and sarcopenia: a narrative review. Quant Imaging Med Surg 8:86–99

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Boutin RD, Yao L, Canter RJ, Lenchik L (2015) Sarcopenia: current concepts and imaging implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W255–W266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shachar SS, Williams GR, Muss HB, Nishijima TF (2016) Prognostic value of sarcopenia in adults with solid tumours: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur J Cancer 57:58–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chang KV, Chen JD, Wu WT, Huang KC, Hsu CT, Han DS (2018) Association between loss of skeletal muscle mass and mortality and tumor recurrence in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Liver Cancer 7:90–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mintziras I, Miligkos M, Wächter S, Manoharan J, Maurer E, Bartsch DK (2018) Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity are significantly associated with poorer overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 59:19–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang Z, Zhou X, Ma B, Xing Y, Jiang X, Wang Z (2018) Predictive value of preoperative sarcopenia in patients with gastric cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 22:1890–1902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Deng HY, Zha P, Peng L, Hou L, Huang KL, Li XY (2019) Preoperative sarcopenia is a predictor of poor prognosis of esophageal cancer after esophagectomy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy115

  19. Deng HY, Hou L, Zha P, Huang KL, Peng L (2019) Sarcopenia is an independent unfavorable prognostic factor of non-small cell lung cancer after surgical resection: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 45:728–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hu X, Dou WC, Shao YX et al (2019) The prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients with surgically treated urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 45:747–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ganju RG, Morse R, Hoover A, TenNapel M, Lominska CE (2019) The impact of sarcopenia on tolerance of radiation and outcome in patients with head and neck cancer receiving chemoradiation. Radiother Oncol 137:117–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pamoukdjian F, Bouillet T, Lévy V, Soussan M, Zelek L, Paillaud E (2018) Prevalence and predictive value of pre-therapeutic sarcopenia in cancer patients: a systematic review. Clin Nutr 37:1101–1113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Friedman J, Lussiez A, Sullivan J, Wang S, Englesbe M (2015) Implications of sarcopenia in major surgery. Nutr Clin Pract 30:175–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bokshan SL, DePasse JM, Daniels AH (2016) Sarcopenia in orthopedic surgery. Orthopedics 39:e295–e300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dirks RC, Edwards BL, Tong E et al (2017) Sarcopenia in emergency abdominal surgery. J Surg Res 207:13–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Meeks AC, Madill J (2017) Sarcopenia in liver transplantation: a review. Clin Nutr ESPEN 22:76–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lindström I, Khan N, Vänttinen T, Peltokangas M, Sillanpää N, Oksala N (2019) Psoas muscle area and quality are independent predictors of survival in patients treated for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg 56:183–193.e3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Boutin RD, Bamrungchart S, Bateni CP et al (2017) CT of patients with hip fracture: muscle size and attenuation help predict mortality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:W208–W215

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Mattera M, Reginelli A, Bartollino S et al (2018) Imaging of metabolic bone disease. Acta Biomed 89:197–207

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hirschfeld HP, Kinsella R, Duque G (2017) Osteosarcopenia: where bone, muscle, and fat collide. Osteoporos Int 28:2781–2790

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Messina C, Monaco CG, Ulivieri FM, Sardanelli F, Sconfienza LM (2016) Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry body composition in patients with secondary osteoporosis. Eur J Radiol 85:1493–1498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bauer JM, Verlaan S, Bautmans I et al (2015) Effects of a vitamin D and leucine-enriched whey protein nutritional supplement on measures of sarcopenia in older adults, the PROVIDE study: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 16:740–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Candow DG, Chilibeck PD, Forbes SC (2014) Creatine supplementation and aging musculoskeletal health. Endocrine 45:354–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hassan BH, Hewitt J, Keogh JW, Bermeo S, Duque G, Henwood TR (2016) Impact of resistance training on sarcopenia in nursing care facilities: a pilot study. Geriatr Nurs 37:116–121

  35. Suetta C, Magnusson SP, Rosted A (2004) Resistance training in the early postoperative phase reduces hospitalization and leads to muscle hypertrophy in elderly hip surgery patients--a controlled, randomized study. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:2016–2022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lau RW, Liao LR, Yu F, Teo T, Chung RC, Pang MY (2011) The effects of whole body vibration therapy on bone mineral density and leg muscle strength in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 25:975–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kullberg J, Brandberg J, Angelhed JE et al (2009) Whole-body adipose tissue analysis: comparison of MRI, CT and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Br J Radiol 82:123–130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Guglielmi G, Ponti F, Agostini M, Amadori M, Battista G, Bazzocchi A (2016) The role of DXA in sarcopenia. Aging Clin Exp Res 28:1047–1060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lenchik L, Boutin RD (2018) Sarcopenia: beyond muscle atrophy and into the new frontiers of opportunistic imaging, precision medicine, and machine learning. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 22:307–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Messina C, Bandirali M, Sconfienza LM et al (2015) Prevalence and type of errors in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Eur Radiol 25:1504–1511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Messina C, Usuelli FG, Maccario C et al (2019) Precision of bone mineral density measurements around total ankle replacement using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Densitom. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2019.01.006

  42. Shen W, Punyanitya M, Wang Z et al (2004) Total body skeletal muscle and adipose tissue volumes: estimation from a single abdominal cross-sectional image. J Appl Physiol (1985) 97:2333–2338

  43. Pescatori LC, Savarino E, Mauri G et al (2019) Quantification of visceral adipose tissue by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: reproducibility and accuracy. Radiol Bras 52:1–6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Santanasto AJ, Goodpaster BH, Kritchevsky SB et al (2017) Body composition remodeling and mortality: the Health Aging and Body Composition Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 72:513–519

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Amini B, Boyle SP, Boutin RD, Lenchik L (2019) Approaches to assessment of muscle mass and myosteatosis on computed tomography (CT): a systematic review. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glz034

  46. Nemec U, Heidinger B, Sokas C, Chu L, Eisenberg RL (2017) Diagnosing sarcopenia on thoracic computed tomography: quantitative assessment of skeletal muscle mass in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Acad Radiol 24:1154–1161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Swartz JE, Pothen AJ, Wegner I et al (2016) Feasibility of using head and neck CT imaging to assess skeletal muscle mass in head and neck cancer patients. Oral Oncol 62:28–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Boutin RD, Kaptuch JM, Bateni CP, Chalfant JS, Yao L (2016) Influence of IV contrast administration on CT measures of muscle and bone attenuation: implications for sarcopenia and osteoporosis evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:1046–1054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mitsiopoulos N, Baumgartner RN, Heymsfield SB, Lyons W, Gallagher D, Ross R (1998) Cadaver validation of skeletal muscle measurement by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography. J Appl Physiol (1985) 85:115–122

  50. Burian E, Syväri J, Holzapfel C et al (2018) Gender-and age-related changes in trunk muscle composition using chemical shift encoding-based water–fat MRI. Nutrients 10:1–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Watanabe K, Ohashi M, Hirano T et al (2018) The influence of lumbar muscle volume on curve progression after skeletal maturity in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a long-term follow-up study. Spine Deform 6:691–698.e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zoico E, Corzato F, Bambace C et al (2013) Myosteatosis and myofibrosis: relationship with aging, inflammation and insulin resistance. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 57:411–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Power GA, Allen MD, Booth WJ, Thompson RT, Marsh GD, Rice CL (2014) The influence on sarcopenia of muscle quality and quantity derived from magnetic resonance imaging and neuromuscular properties. Age (Dordr) 36:9642

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Fischer MA, Pfirrmann CWA, Espinosa N, Raptis DA, Buck FM (2014) Dixon-based MRI for assessment of muscle-fat content in phantoms, healthy volunteers and patients with achillodynia: comparison to visual assessment of calf muscle quality. Eur Radiol 24:1366–1375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sinha U, Malis V, Csapo R, Moghadasi A, Kinugasa R, Sinha S (2015) Age-related differences in strain rate tensor of the medial gastrocnemius muscle during passive plantarflexion and active isometric contraction using velocity encoded MR imaging: potential index of lateral force transmission. Magn Reson Med 73:1852–1863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Grimm A, Nickel MD, Chaudry O et al (2019) Feasibility of Dixon magnetic resonance imaging to quantify effects of physical training on muscle composition-a pilot study in young and healthy men. Eur J Radiol 114:160–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Li K, Dortch RD, Welch EB et al (2014) Multi-parametric MRI characterization of healthy human thigh muscles at 3.0 T - relaxation, magnetization transfer, fat/water, and diffusion tensor imaging. NMR Biomed 27:1070–1084

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Grimm A, Meyer H, Nickel MD et al (2018) Repeatability of Dixon magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for quantitative muscle fat assessments in the thigh. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 9:1093–1100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Forbes SC, Lott DJ, Finkel RS et al (2012) MRI/MRS evaluation of a female carrier of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord 22(Suppl 2):S111–S121

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Chianca V, Albano D, Messina C et al (2017) Diffusion tensor imaging in the musculoskeletal and peripheral nerve systems: from experimental to clinical applications. Eur Radiol Exp 1:12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Albano D, Chianca V, Cuocolo R et al (2018) T2-mapping of the sacroiliac joints at 1.5 Tesla: a feasibility and reproducibility study. Skeletal Radiol 47:1691–1696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Melville DM, Mohler J, Fain M et al (2016) Multi-parametric MR imaging of quadriceps musculature in the setting of clinical frailty syndrome. Skeletal Radiol 45:583–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Azzabou N, Hogrel JY, Carlier PG (2015) NMR based biomarkers to study age-related changes in the human quadriceps. Exp Gerontol 70:54–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Mourtzakis M, Parry S, Connolly B, Puthucheary Z (2017) Skeletal muscle ultrasound in critical care: a tool in need of translation. Ann Am Thorac Soc 14:1495–1503

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Scott JM, Martin DS, Ploutz-Snyder R et al (2012) Reliability and validity of panoramic ultrasound for muscle quantification. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:1656–1661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ticinesi A, Meschi T, Narici MV, Lauretani F, Maggio M (2017) Muscle ultrasound and sarcopenia in older individuals: a clinical perspective. J Am Med Dir Assoc 18:290–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Berger J, Bunout D, Barrera G et al (2015) Rectus femoris (RF) ultrasound for the assessment of muscle mass in older people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 61:33–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Guerri S, Mercatelli D, Aparisi Gómez MP et al (2018) Quantitative imaging techniques for the assessment of osteoporosis and sarcopenia. Quant Imaging Med Surg 8:60–85

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Rosenberg JG, Ryan ED, Sobolewski EJ, Scharville MJ, Thompson BJ, King GE (2014) Reliability of panoramic ultrasound imaging to simultaneously examine muscle size and quality of the medial gastrocnemius. Muscle Nerve 49:736–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Strasser EM, Draskovits T, Praschak M, Quittan M, Graf A (2013) Association between ultrasound measurements of muscle thickness, pennation angle, echogenicity and skeletal muscle strength in the elderly. Age (Dordr) 35:2377–2388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Watanabe Y, Yamada Y, Fukumoto Y et al (2013) Echo intensity obtained from ultrasonography images reflecting muscle strength in elderly men. Clin Interv Aging 8:993–998

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Randhawa A, Wakeling JM (2013) Associations between muscle structure and contractile performance in seniors. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 28:705–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Narici M, Franchi M, Maganaris C (2016) Muscle structural assembly and functional consequences. J Exp Biol 219:276–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Brandenburg JE, Eby SF, Song P et al (2014) Ultrasound elastography: the new frontier in direct measurement of muscle stiffness. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 95:2207–2219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Mitchell WK, Phillips BE, Williams JP et al (2013) Development of a new Sonovue contrast-enhanced ultrasound approach reveals temporal and age-related features of muscle microvascular responses to feeding. Physiol Rep 1:e00119

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Sconfienza LM, Albano D, Allen G et al (2018) Clinical indications for musculoskeletal ultrasound updated in 2017 by European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR) consensus. Eur Radiol 28:5338–5351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Sconfienza LM (2019) Sarcopenia: ultrasound today, smartphones tomorrow? Eur Radiol 29:1–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Somerson JS, Hsu JE, Gorbaty JD, Gee AO (2016) Classifications in brief: Goutallier classification of fatty infiltration of the rotator cuff musculature. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:1328–1332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Erlandson MC, Lorbergs AL, Mathur S, Cheung AM (2016) Muscle analysis using pQCT, DXA and MRI. Eur J Radiol 85:1505–1511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Domenico Albano and Carmelo Messina share the first author position as they equally contributed to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy

    Domenico Albano, Carmelo Messina, Jacopo Vitale & Luca Maria Sconfienza

  2. Sezione di Scienze Radiologiche, Dipartimento di Biomedicina, Neuroscienze e Diagnostica Avanzata, Università degli Studi di Palermo, 90127, Palermo, Italy

    Domenico Albano

  3. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy

    Carmelo Messina & Luca Maria Sconfienza

Authors
  1. Domenico Albano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carmelo Messina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacopo Vitale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luca Maria Sconfienza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Maria Sconfienza.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Luca Maria Sconfienza MD PhD.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because it does not involve patients.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because it does not involve patients.

Methodology

• Narrative review

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albano, D., Messina, C., Vitale, J. et al. Imaging of sarcopenia: old evidence and new insights. Eur Radiol 30, 2199–2208 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06573-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06573-2

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Domenico Albano View author profile