## 2 Materials and Methods
### Results  
A total of 106 male Caucasian patients with ccRCC were selected after the first screening according to the exclusion criteria. The two groups were composed as follows: ccRCCCa (n = 48; mean age: 57.1, range: 26-78) and ccRCCp (n = 58; mean age: 59.7, range: 34-84). The descriptive data of both groups are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Regardless of peritumoral collateral vessels adjacent to ccRCC, a total of 23 patients had a history of previous malignancy and a total of 9 patients had received a neoadjuvant treatment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline Gender & Male (48) \\ \hline Age (Mean) & 57.1; 26–78 (48) \\ \hline Ethnicity & Caucasian (48) \\ \hline Previous malignancy & No (34) \\ Yes (14) \\ \hline Previous neoadjuvant treatment & No (43) \\ Yes (5) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{T1 aN0M0 (9)} \\ T1 aNXM0 (19) \\ T1 bN0M0 (5) \\ T1 bNXM0 (6) \\ T2N0M0 (3) \\ T2 NXM0 (1) \\ T3 aN0M0 (2) \\ T3 aN0M1 (2) \\ T3 bNXM0 (1) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{T1 bN0M0 (5)} \\ T1 bN0M0 (6) \\ Stage & T2N0M0 (3) \\ T2 NXM0 (1) \\ T3 aN0M0 (2) \\ T3 aN0M1 (2) \\ T3 bNXM0 (1) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive data of ccRCCCa group. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline Gender & Male (58) \\ \hline Age (Mean) & 59.7; 34–84 (58) \\ \hline Ethnicity & Caucasian (58) \\ \hline Previous malignancy & No (49) \\ Yes (9) \\ \hline Previous neoadjuvant treatment & No (54) \\ Yes (4) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Descriptive data of ccRCCp group. Figure 2: Axial CT images showing a single slice located 3 cm above the lower margin of L3 without ROIs (**a**) and the same slice with superimposed colored ROIs of VAT area (red ROI) and of SAT area (cyan ROI) (**b**). The sagittal plane, depicted in the middle, has been used as a reference to drive the correct ROI drawing for each subject. Age was not significantly different between the ccRCCCa and ccRCCCp groups (\(p\) = 0.25). Statistically significant differences between the ccRCCCa group and the ccRCCCp group were obtained for the SAT area (\(p\) < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was obtained for the TAT area (\(p\) = 0.09), VAT area and (\(p\) = 0.45) VAT/SAT ratio (\(p\) = 0.15). The results are listed in Table 3 and are represented in Figure 3.  
Furthermore, to understand the impact of possible confounding variables on our statistically significant result we conducted two subanalyses on SAT. No significant differ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline  & T1 aNXM0 (10) \\  & T1 bN0M0 (2) \\  & T1 bNXM0 (7) \\  & T2N0M0 (5) \\  & T2N0M1 (1) \\  & T2 NXM0 (2) \\  & T2 aNXM0 (2) \\  & T3 aN0M0 (9) \\  & T3 aNXM0 (4) \\  & T3 aNXM1 (5) \\  & T3 aN1M1 (1) \\  & T3 bN0M0 (3) \\  & T3 bNXM0 (4) \\  & T3 bNXM1 (1) \\  & T4N1M1 (1) \\  & T4 NXM0 (1) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._  
Figure 3: Bar chart showing mean values with error bars of SAT areas in ccRCCCa and ccRCCCp groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **TAT Area (cm\({}^{2}\))** & **VAT Area (cm\({}^{2}\))** & **SAT Area (cm\({}^{2}\))** & **VAT/SAT Ratio** \\ \hline ccRCCCa group & 468.9 & 239.63 & 228.45 & 1.16 \\ (mean, range and & 97.3-914.7 & 18-43.43 & 64.6-632.1 & 0.22-291 \\ standard deviation) & 205.06 & 112.07 & 121.23 & 0.61 \\ \hline ccRCCCp group & 408.31 & 224.27 & 184.03 & 1.36 \\ (mean, range and & 108.2-903.8 & 39.2-505.1 & 69-596.8 & 0.32–5.3 \\ standard deviation) & 162.72 & 100.33 & 92.21 & 0.76 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean, range and standard deviation of the ccRCCCa group and ccRCCCp group and Student’s \(t\)-test results. ences in terms of SAT area were detected by comparing patients with and without previous malignancy (\(p\) = 0.23) and patients with and without previous neoadjuvant treatment (\(p\) = 0.85).