Patricio Riva-Posse1, Ki Sueng Choi2, Paul E Holtzheimer3, Cameron C McIntyre4, Robert E Gross5, Ashutosh Chaturvedi4, Andrea L Crowell6, Steven J Garlow6, Justin K Rajendra6, Helen S Mayberg7. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University. Electronic address: privapo@emory.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University; Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Atlanta, Georgia; Biomedical Imaging Technology Center, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University; Departments of Psychiatry and Surgery, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University; Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subcallosal cingulate white matter (SCC) deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an evolving investigational treatment for depression. Mechanisms of action are hypothesized to involve modulation of activity within a structurally defined network of brain regions involved in mood regulation. Diffusion tensor imaging was used to model white matter connections within this network to identify those critical for successful antidepressant response. METHODS: Preoperative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging data, including diffusion tensor imaging, were acquired in 16 patients with treatment-resistant depression, who then received SCC DBS. Computerized tomography was used postoperatively to locate DBS contacts. The activation volume around the contacts used for chronic stimulation was modeled for each patient retrospectively. Probabilistic tractography was used to delineate the white matter tracts traveling through each activation volume. Patient-specific tract maps were calculated using whole-brain analysis. Clinical evaluations of therapeutic outcome from SCC DBS were defined at 6 months and 2 years. RESULTS: Whole-brain activation volume tractography demonstrated that all DBS responders at 6 months (n = 6) and 2 years (n = 12) shared bilateral pathways from their activation volumes to 1) medial frontal cortex via forceps minor and uncinate fasciculus; 2) rostral and dorsal cingulate cortex via the cingulum bundle; and 3) subcortical nuclei. Nonresponders did not consistently show these connections. Specific anatomical coordinates of the active contacts did not discriminate responders from nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-specific activation volume tractography modeling may identify critical tracts that mediate SCC DBS antidepressant response. This suggests a novel method for patient-specific target and stimulation parameter selection.
BACKGROUND: Subcallosal cingulate white matter (SCC) deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an evolving investigational treatment for depression. Mechanisms of action are hypothesized to involve modulation of activity within a structurally defined network of brain regions involved in mood regulation. Diffusion tensor imaging was used to model white matter connections within this network to identify those critical for successful antidepressant response. METHODS: Preoperative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging data, including diffusion tensor imaging, were acquired in 16 patients with treatment-resistant depression, who then received SCC DBS. Computerized tomography was used postoperatively to locate DBS contacts. The activation volume around the contacts used for chronic stimulation was modeled for each patient retrospectively. Probabilistic tractography was used to delineate the white matter tracts traveling through each activation volume. Patient-specific tract maps were calculated using whole-brain analysis. Clinical evaluations of therapeutic outcome from SCC DBS were defined at 6 months and 2 years. RESULTS: Whole-brain activation volume tractography demonstrated that all DBS responders at 6 months (n = 6) and 2 years (n = 12) shared bilateral pathways from their activation volumes to 1) medial frontal cortex via forceps minor and uncinate fasciculus; 2) rostral and dorsal cingulate cortex via the cingulum bundle; and 3) subcortical nuclei. Nonresponders did not consistently show these connections. Specific anatomical coordinates of the active contacts did not discriminate responders from nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-specific activation volume tractography modeling may identify critical tracts that mediate SCC DBS antidepressant response. This suggests a novel method for patient-specific target and stimulation parameter selection.
Authors: H C F Martens; E Toader; M M J Decré; D J Anderson; R Vetter; D R Kipke; Kenneth B Baker; Matthew D Johnson; Jerrold L Vitek Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Sidney H Kennedy; Peter Giacobbe; Sakina J Rizvi; Franca M Placenza; Yasunori Nishikawa; Helen S Mayberg; Andres M Lozano Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Julia F Lehman; Benjamin D Greenberg; Cameron C McIntyre; Steve A Rasmussen; Suzanne N Haber Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: K Setsompop; R Kimmlingen; E Eberlein; T Witzel; J Cohen-Adad; J A McNab; B Keil; M D Tisdall; P Hoecht; P Dietz; S F Cauley; V Tountcheva; V Matschl; V H Lenz; K Heberlein; A Potthast; H Thein; J Van Horn; A Toga; F Schmitt; D Lehne; B R Rosen; V Wedeen; L L Wald Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: H S Mayberg; M Liotti; S K Brannan; S McGinnis; R K Mahurin; P A Jerabek; J A Silva; J L Tekell; C C Martin; J L Lancaster; P T Fox Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: H S Mayberg; S K Brannan; J L Tekell; J A Silva; R K Mahurin; S McGinnis; P A Jerabek Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2000-10-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: D A Seminowicz; H S Mayberg; A R McIntosh; K Goldapple; S Kennedy; Z Segal; S Rafi-Tari Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Edgar Peña; Simeng Zhang; Remi Patriat; Joshua E Aman; Jerrold L Vitek; Noam Harel; Matthew D Johnson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Ashan Veerakumar; Vineet Tiruvadi; Bryan Howell; Allison C Waters; Andrea L Crowell; Bradley Voytek; Patricio Riva-Posse; Lydia Denison; Justin K Rajendra; Johnathan A Edwards; Kelly R Bijanki; Ki Sueng Choi; Helen S Mayberg Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Cory S Inman; Kelly R Bijanki; David I Bass; Robert E Gross; Stephan Hamann; Jon T Willie Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.139
Authors: Emma Sprooten; Jennifer Barrett; D Reese McKay; Emma E Knowles; Samuel R Mathias; Anderson M Winkler; Margaret S Brumbaugh; Stefanie Landau; Lindsay Cyr; Peter Kochunov; David C Glahn Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 5.038