| Literature DB >> 24179752 |
E van Dellen1, P C de Witt Hamer, L Douw, M Klein, J J Heimans, C J Stam, J C Reijneveld, A Hillebrand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Low-grade glioma (LGG) patients often have cognitive deficits. Several disease- and treatment related factors affect cognitive processing. Cognitive outcome of resective surgery is unpredictable, both for improvement and deterioration, especially for complex domains such as attention and executive functioning. MEG analysis of resting-state networks (RSNs) is a good candidate for presurgical prediction of cognitive outcome. In this study, we explore the relation between alterations in connectivity of RSNs and changes in cognitive processing after resective surgery, as a stepping stone to ultimately predict postsurgical cognitive outcome.Entities:
Keywords: Cognition; Functional connectivity; Glioma; Magnetoencephalography; Resective surgery; Resting-state networks
Year: 2012 PMID: 24179752 PMCID: PMC3777771 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2012.10.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Cognitive test battery and corresponding domains.
| Neuropsychological test | Corresponding cognitive domain |
|---|---|
| Concept shifting test | Executive functioning, psychomotor speed |
| Categoric word fluency task | Executive functioning |
| Rey auditory verbal learning test | Verbal memory |
| Stroop color-word test | Attention |
| Memory comparison test | Working memory |
| Letter-digit substitution test | Information processing, psychomotor speed |
Tests were assessed as described by (Lezak, 1995), except for the Concept shifting test (Houx and Jolles, 1994).
Patient characteristics.
| Patient | Age | Gender | Lat. | Localization | Preop. vol. | Postop. vol. | EOR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20 | F | R | Temp | 7 | 0 | 99% |
| 2 | 48 | F | R | Front-Temp-Ins | 72 | 8 | 89% |
| 3 | 29 | M | L | Front-Temp | 68 | 4 | 94% |
| 4 | 53 | F | L | Temp | 106 | 5 | 95% |
| 5 | 29 | M | R | Front-Temp | 78 | 25 | 68% |
| 6 | 52 | M | L | Temp | 49 | 5 | 90% |
| 7 | 46 | M | R | Front-Temp | 80 | 19 | 76% |
| 8 | 18 | M | L | Front-Temp | 37 | 1 | 98% |
| 9 | 28 | F | L | Front-Temp-Ins | 56 | 10 | 82% |
| 10 | 30 | M | L | Front | 30 | 11 | 63% |
Patient characteristics. Lateralization and localization of the tumor are given, as well as tumor volumes (as determined with iPlan software, BrainLAB, Feldkirchen, Germany) and the extent of the resection.
Abbreviations: Preop. vol = preoperative tumor volume (mL); Postop. vol. = preoperative tumor volume (mL); EOR = extent of resection; F = female; M = male; lat = lateralization of tumor; temp = temporal; front = frontal; ins = insula.
No neuropsychological evaluation data available.
Fig. 1Localization of gliomas and resection cavities. Heatmap of lesion load for (A) glioma localization and (B) resection cavity localization of the study population on MNI standard brain template (MNI z-coordinates are given for each cross section). The legend shows the number of gliomas and resection cavities, respectively, that are represented by the colors in the figure. Note that most lesions are remote from the default mode network and right frontoparietal network shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
Changes in cognitive performance.
| Patient | Overall | Executive functioning | Verbal memory | Working memory | Information processing | Attention | Psychomotor speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.45 | − 0.28 | − 0.05 | 0.20 | 0.47 | 2.59 | 0.45 |
| 2 | − 0.06 | − 0.39 | − 0.38 | 0.14 | − 0.23 | 0.18 | − 0.59 |
| 3 | − 0.09 | − 0.28 | − 0.03 | − 0.36 | − 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.56 |
| 4 | − 0.79 | − 0.40 | − 2.15 | − 0.17 | − 0.01 | − 0.23 | 0.16 |
| 5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 6 | − 0.02 | − 0.51 | 0.35 | 0.06 | 0.57 | − 0.29 | − 0.86 |
| 7 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 8 | − 1.33 | − 1.65 | − 1.00 | − 1.02 | − 1.07 | − 2.88 | − 0.15 |
| 9 | − 0.09 | 0.29 | − 0.04 | − 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | − 0.11 |
| 10 | 0.34 | − 0.14 | 0.35 | 0.12 | 0.43 | 0.75 | 0.55 |
Individual cognitive performance scores are presented per domain. Values represent the difference of the z-scores between T1 and T2 (positive values indicate better performance after resection). NA = not available.
Fig. 2The default mode network, marked red in the left frame, showed increased connectivity in the lower alpha band after resection. Connectivity increase is presented as a 95% confidence interval at both time points. The p-value marks the significance of a Wilcoxon signed ranks test.
Fig. 3The frontoparietal network of the right hemisphere, marked red on the left frame, showed increased connectivity in the upper alpha band after resection. Connectivity increase is presented as a 95% confidence interval at both time points. The p-value marks the significance of a Wilcoxon signed ranks test.
Fig. 4Correlations between lower alpha band DMN changes and verbal memory (left; tau = 0.571; R2 = 0.215; p = 0.048), and upper alpha band FPN changes and attention (right; tau = 0.857; R2 = 0.602; p = 0.003). Most patients show only small increases in RSN connectivity and small improvement in cognitive performance. Especially patients with no increase of RSN connectivity show deterioration of cognitive performance scores.