All patients had muscle mass (MM) and fat mass (FM) measured by BIA with Tanita Segmental Body Composition Analyzer (BC-418) and by software analysis of CT scans at L3-level with VikingSlice. 
Tanita Segmental Body Composition Analyzer
All patients had muscle mass (MM) and fat mass (FM) measured by BIA with Tanita Segmental Body Composition Analyzer (BC-418) and by software analysis of CT scans at L3-level with VikingSlice. 
VikingSlice
This study aimed to investigate the agreement between body composition recorded with bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and software analysis of CT scans of patients suffering from cancer with a special emphasis on muscle mass.


 All patients had muscle mass (MM) and fat mass (FM) measured by BIA with Tanita Segmental Body Composition Analyzer (BC-418) and by software analysis of CT scans at L3-level with VikingSlice.  Secondary parameters (systemic inflammation, physical performance and electrolyte balance) were investigated for possible pitfalls of BIA.  Patients who fulfilled best standard practice for BIA measurements, including 4 h of fasting, absence of oedema and no metallic implants, participated in a subgroup analysis.  A satisfactory agreement of BIA and CT measurements is established as ±10%.


 The bias between methods of measurement for MM was 4.74 ± 11.55% (P = 0.002) with limits of agreement (LoA) of -17.91 to 27.38%.  In the subgroup analysis, the bias of MM was 3.06 ± 10.71% (P = 0.091) and LoA were -17.94 to 24.06%.  BIA and CT image analysis were not comparable for body composition measurements.  BIA overestimated MM and underestimated FM with LoA outside that of the clinically assessed acceptable difference.  Bias was reduced and LoA narrowed in the subgroup analysis however not to acceptable levels.  This study finds it possible that patients with low physical performance are liable to larger overestimations of MM with BIA than those with normal physical performance.
BIA