| Literature DB >> 23166829 |
Edwin van Dellen1, Linda Douw, Arjan Hillebrand, Irene H M Ris-Hilgersom, Menno M Schoonheim, Johannes C Baayen, Philip C De Witt Hamer, Demetrios N Velis, Martin Klein, Jan J Heimans, Cornelis J Stam, Jaap C Reijneveld.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To reveal possible differences in whole brain topology of epileptic glioma patients, being low-grade glioma (LGG) and high-grade glioma (HGG) patients. We studied functional networks in these patients and compared them to those in epilepsy patients with non-glial lesions (NGL) and healthy controls. Finally, we related network characteristics to seizure frequency and cognitive performance within patient groups.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23166829 PMCID: PMC3498183 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Patient characteristics.
| Characteristic | LGG | HGG | non-Glioma | Controls |
| N | 13 | 12 | 10 | 36 |
| Age (years) | 44.1 (±SD 9.7) | 50.3 (±SD 11.5) | 30.1 (±SD 6.8) | 43.9 (±SD 11.9) |
|
| ||||
| Male | 6 | 10 | 4 | 18 |
| Female | 7 | 2 | 6 | 18 |
|
| Grade II: 13 | Grade III: 4 | DNET: 3 | |
| Grade IV: 8 | MTS: 4 | |||
| HEM: 1 | ||||
| HAM: 1 | ||||
| DYS: 1 | ||||
|
| ||||
| Left | 5 | 3 | 6 | |
| Right | 8 | 9 | 4 | |
|
| 8.2 (±SD 9.9) | 17.4 (±SD 43.6) | 28.9 (±SD 31.1) | |
|
| 44 (±SD 64) | 20 (±SD 39) | 228 (±SD 141) | |
|
| ||||
| Part. simple | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| Part. complex | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| (Sec.) Generalized | 9 | 10 | 7 | |
|
| ||||
| None | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Single AED | 5 | 9 | 4 | |
| Multiple AEDs | 6 | 3 | 6 | |
|
| −0.5 (±SD 1.1) | −0.2 (±SD 0.8) | ||
| Attention | −1.1 (±SD 1.8) | −0.5 (±SD 1.1) | ||
| Executive functioning | −1.2 (±SD 1.1) | −1.0 (±SD 0.8) | ||
| Verbal memory | 0.0 (±SD 0.9) | 0.0 (±SD 0.7) |
Seizure frequency is given per month; Epilepsy history is defined as months passed since first seizure. Cognitive performance scores are presented as z-scores based on individual matched healthy controls. Also, cognitive performance is presented of the domains attention (Stroop test), executive functioning (Verbal Fluency test) and verbal memory (Visual Verbal Learning test). Abbreviations: AED = anti-epileptic drug; DNET = Dysembryoplastic Neoepithelial Tumor; MTS = Mesiotemporal Sclerosis; HEM = Hematoma; HAM = Hamartoma; DYS = Dysplasia.
Differences between patients and healthy controls regarding theta band network characteristics.
| Measure | LGG | HGG | NGL | Controls | p-value |
| PLI | 0.146 | 0.133 | 0.136 | 0.136 | 0.216 |
| Cw/Cws | 1.072 ↑ | 1.058 | 1.066 | 1.058 | *0.019 |
| Lw/Lws | 1.105 | 1.084 | 1.101 ↑ | 1.087 | *0.023 |
| S | 0.343 ↓ | 0.374 | 0.355 ↓ | 0.367 | *0.009 |
| Qm w | 0.071 | 0.072 | 0.075 ↑ | 0.070 | *0.025 |
| Pw | 0.727 ↓ | 0.750 | 0.745 | 0.756 | *0.005 |
Results are given as mean values of network characterstics and p-values of Kruskall-Wallis tests. P-values were considered significant for (p<0.05) after correction using the false discovery rate. Note that the within-module degree z-score (not shown) did not differ significantly.
Results are marked (↑ or ↓) when significantly different from other groups based on post-hoc analyses using Mann-Whitney U tests. Significance levels are given in table S1.
Abbreviations: NGL = non-glial lesion; LGG = low-grade glioma; HGG = high-grade glioma; PLI = phase lag index; Cw/Cws = normalized average weighted clustering coefficient; Lw/Lws = normalized average weighted shortest path length; S = synchronizability; = modularity; Pw = between-module connectivity.
Figure 1Theta band PLI and network characteristics for patients and healthy controls.
Parameters were averaged for each sensor on a group level and displayed on a helmet-shaped surface to show global patterns of differences between patient groups. Note that particularly in LGG patients, theta band clustering and participation coefficients show global alterations irrespective of local PLI values. Abbreviations: CTL = healthy controls; LGG = low-grade glioma patients; HGG = high-grade glioma patients; NGL = non-glioma patients; PLI = phase lag index; Cw,i* = nodal clustering coefficient; Lw,i* = nodal path length; = within-module degree z-score; = participation coefficient. *In the analysis we use normalized average weighted clustering coefficient (C
Figure 2Example of theta band connection differences between a LGG patient and a HGG patient, both suffering from a tumor located in the right frontal lobe.
The upper images show T2-weighted MRI images of the tumor. The lower images show theta band PLI levels (background colors; red colors represent high PLI levels, blue colors represent low PLI levels). Note that the tumor region seems to have the highest theta band PLI. The colored lines represent connections between sensors, each color representing another module. Connections are shown when their strength passes an arbitrary threshold chosen for optimal connection visualization. In HGG patients, only few connections exist above the threshold. Note that especially connections to the tumor region in LGG patients pass the threshold. However, two other modules are also clearly shown that are not found in the HGG patient, suggesting that the differences between LGG and HGG patients networks are not restricted to the tumor region.
Figure 3Theta band synchronizability and seizure frequency in low grade glioma patients.
Note that seizure frequency is plotted on a logarithmic scale. See tables S4 and S5 for seizure frequency and synchronizability values for each patient.
Figure 4Theta band synchronizability and attention as measured by Stroop tests.
Attention scores are presented as z-scores gained by comparison with healthy controls matched for age, gender and educational level. See table S4 for attention scores and synchronizability values for each patient.
Overview of MEG functional connectivity studies on lesional epilepsy patients.
| Study | Population | Methods | Findings |
| Bartolomei 2006a | 17 brain tumour patients vs 15 healthy controls | SL | broad and γ band: disconnected points in brain tumour patients after thresholding SL values |
| Bartolomei 2006b | 17 brain tumour patients vs 15 healthy controls | SL; unweighted networks (k = 10) | Δ, θ and α band: local SL ↑ |
| Δ, α and β band: long-distance SL ↑ | |||
| θ, β, and γ band: L/Ls ↓ | |||
| θ, and γ band: C/Cs ↓ | |||
| Bosma 2008 | 17 LGG patients vs 17 healthy controls | SL | Δ band: interregional SL ↑or ↓ |
| θ and lower γ band: interregional SL ↑ | |||
| lower α band: interregional SL ↓ | |||
| Guggisberg 2008 | 15 focal brain lesion patients vs 14 healthy controls | Imaginary coherence | Decreased α band coherence |
| Douw 2008 | 15 brain tumour patients | PLI | θ band: PLI ↓ after resection; higher decrease correlated with lower post-surgery seizure burden |
| Bosma 2009 | 17 LGG patients vs 17 healthy controls | PLI; unweighted networks (k = 10) | θ band: PLI and C/Cs ↑ |
| β band: C/Cs and S ↓ | |||
| upper γ band: degree cor. ↓ | |||
| Horstmann 2009 | 21 MTLE patients vs 23 healthy controls | cross-correlation; phase sync.; various methods for network construction | broad, Δ, θ and β band: mostly C↑, but also C↓ or = depending on methodology |
| Douw 2010 | 17 glioma patients | PLI; weighted networks | θ band: PLI and L/Ls related to higher seizure frequency |
Overview of functional connectivity and network studies based on MEG recordings in brain tumour and TLE patients. The measure for functional connectivity used in the study is given in the Methods column. Abbreviations: SL = Synchronization Likelihood; PLI = Phase Lag Index; L/Ls = normalized average path length; C/Cs = normalized average clustering coefficient; degree cor. = degree correlation (measure for the tendency of vertices to connect to other vertices with a similar degree).
MEG recordings used in these studies were obtained after surgery, which might also have had an impact on functional connectivity levels and network topology.
No information available on epilepsy incidence in these patients.
This study did not compare patients to healthy controls, but compared MEG recordings of patients before and after resection of the brain tumour.
This study analyzed patients with non-glial lesions, and should therefore be considered only as a reference for patients with NGL in the present study.