M P Meier1, J Ilmberger, G Fesl, M I Ruge. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum Bogenhausen, Städtisches Klinikum München, Englschalkinger Straße 77, 81925, Munich, Germany. Michael.Meier@klinikum-muenchen.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a widely available method and is therefore progressively utilized in neurosurgical practice. This study was carried out to determine fMRI sensitivity and specificity and to emphasize the threshold dependence of fMRI data. METHODS: A total of 17 consecutive patients, scheduled for surgery on intracerebral lesions near eloquent brain areas, underwent preoperative motor (N = 12) and language (N = 5) fMRI. Functional data were analyzed with SPM software and displayed on a neuronavigation system for intraoperative guidance. High-risk maps for motor and language deficits obtained from direct electric cortical stimulation (DECS) were used for validation of functional activated areas. In a first analysis step, sensitivity and specificity were calculated in terms of a side-by-side correlation. The next step, the threshold dependence of fMRI data sensitivity and specificity, was estimated according to four statistical thresholds (p1 < 0.05, p2 < 0.0005, p3 < 0.00001, p4 < 0.0000001). RESULTS: Both functional imaging and DECS revealed definite results for the investigated areas in all patients. Calculation of sensitivity and specificity resulted in 100 % and 68 % for the motor group and a sensitivity of 75 % and specificity of 68 % for the language group at the fixed threshold analysis. Threshold-dependent analysis of the obtained data revealed a sensitivity/specificity relationship from 100 %/0 % at threshold (p1), 100 %/5 % at (p2), 74 %/9 % at (p3), and 37 %/36 % at (p4) for the motor group. Evaluation of threshold-dependent sensitivity and specificity for the language group resulted in 78 %/51 % at threshold (p1), 67 %/75 % at (p2), 50 %/78 % at (p3), and 33 %/89 % at (p4). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings on the threshold dependence of fMRI data demonstrate why individualized thresholds should be obtained in case of fMRI evaluation. Although the results are satisfying in most cases, fMRI is apparently not sufficient for critical intraoperative decision-making.
BACKGROUND: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a widely available method and is therefore progressively utilized in neurosurgical practice. This study was carried out to determine fMRI sensitivity and specificity and to emphasize the threshold dependence of fMRI data. METHODS: A total of 17 consecutive patients, scheduled for surgery on intracerebral lesions near eloquent brain areas, underwent preoperative motor (N = 12) and language (N = 5) fMRI. Functional data were analyzed with SPM software and displayed on a neuronavigation system for intraoperative guidance. High-risk maps for motor and language deficits obtained from direct electric cortical stimulation (DECS) were used for validation of functional activated areas. In a first analysis step, sensitivity and specificity were calculated in terms of a side-by-side correlation. The next step, the threshold dependence of fMRI data sensitivity and specificity, was estimated according to four statistical thresholds (p1 < 0.05, p2 < 0.0005, p3 < 0.00001, p4 < 0.0000001). RESULTS: Both functional imaging and DECS revealed definite results for the investigated areas in all patients. Calculation of sensitivity and specificity resulted in 100 % and 68 % for the motor group and a sensitivity of 75 % and specificity of 68 % for the language group at the fixed threshold analysis. Threshold-dependent analysis of the obtained data revealed a sensitivity/specificity relationship from 100 %/0 % at threshold (p1), 100 %/5 % at (p2), 74 %/9 % at (p3), and 37 %/36 % at (p4) for the motor group. Evaluation of threshold-dependent sensitivity and specificity for the language group resulted in 78 %/51 % at threshold (p1), 67 %/75 % at (p2), 50 %/78 % at (p3), and 33 %/89 % at (p4). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings on the threshold dependence of fMRI data demonstrate why individualized thresholds should be obtained in case of fMRI evaluation. Although the results are satisfying in most cases, fMRI is apparently not sufficient for critical intraoperative decision-making.
Authors: Rachel Rolinski; Alison Austermuehle; Edythe Wiggs; Shubhi Agrawal; Leigh N Sepeta; William D Gaillard; Kareem A Zaghloul; Sara K Inati; William H Theodore Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Elena Solesio-Jofre; Leen Serbruyns; Daniel G Woolley; Dante Mantini; Iseult A M Beets; Stephan P Swinnen Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: David G Ellis; Matthew L White; Satoru Hayasaka; David E Warren; Tony W Wilson; Michele R Aizenberg Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Alison Austermuehle; John Cocjin; Richard Reynolds; Shubhi Agrawal; Leigh Sepeta; William D Gaillard; Kareem A Zaghloul; Sara Inati; William H Theodore Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Marco Ciavarro; Eleonora Grande; Luigi Pavone; Giuseppina Bevacqua; Michelangelo De Angelis; Paolo di Russo; Roberta Morace; Giorgia Committeri; Giovanni Grillea; Marcello Bartolo; Sergio Paolini; Vincenzo Esposito Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Melanie A Morrison; Fred Tam; Marco M Garavaglia; Gregory M T Hare; Michael D Cusimano; Tom A Schweizer; Sunit Das; Simon J Graham Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 4.677