C Méndez Orellana1, E Visch-Brink2, M Vernooij3, S Kalloe3, D Satoer4, A Vincent4, A van der Lugt3, M Smits5. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (C.M.O., M.V., S.K., A.v.d.L., M.S.) Neurology (C.M.O., E.V.-B). 2. Neurology (C.M.O., E.V.-B) Neurosurgery (E.V.-B., D.S., A.V.), Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. From the Departments of Radiology (C.M.O., M.V., S.K., A.v.d.L., M.S.). 4. Neurosurgery (E.V.-B., D.S., A.V.), Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5. From the Departments of Radiology (C.M.O., M.V., S.K., A.v.d.L., M.S.) marion.smits@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Determining language dominance with fMRI is challenging in patients with brain tumor, particularly in cases of suspected atypical language representation. Supratentorial activation patterns must be interpreted with great care when the tumor is in or near the presumed language areas, where tumor tissue or mass effect can lead to false-negative fMRI results. In this study, we assessed cerebrocerebellar language fMRI lateralization in healthy participants and in patients with brain tumors with a focus on atypical language representation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty healthy participants and 38 patients with a brain tumor underwent fMRI with a verb-generation task. Cerebral and cerebellar language lateralizations were separately classified as left-sided, right-sided, or symmetric. Electrocortical stimulation was performed in 19 patients. With the McNemar test, we evaluated the dependency between language lateralization in the cerebrum and cerebellum, and with Pearson correlation analysis, the relationship between the cerebral and cerebellar lateralization indices. RESULTS: There was a significant dependency between cerebral and cerebellar language activation, with moderate negative correlation (Pearson r = -0.69). Crossed cerebrocerebellar language activation was present in both healthy participants and patients, irrespective of handedness or typical or atypical language representation. There were no discordant findings between fMRI and electrocortical stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Language lateralization in the cerebellum can be considered an additional diagnostic feature to determine language dominance in patients with brain tumor. This is particularly useful in cases of uncertainty, such as the interference of a brain tumor with cerebral language activation on fMRI and atypical language representation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Determining language dominance with fMRI is challenging in patients with brain tumor, particularly in cases of suspected atypical language representation. Supratentorial activation patterns must be interpreted with great care when the tumor is in or near the presumed language areas, where tumor tissue or mass effect can lead to false-negative fMRI results. In this study, we assessed cerebrocerebellar language fMRI lateralization in healthy participants and in patients with brain tumors with a focus on atypical language representation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty healthy participants and 38 patients with a brain tumor underwent fMRI with a verb-generation task. Cerebral and cerebellar language lateralizations were separately classified as left-sided, right-sided, or symmetric. Electrocortical stimulation was performed in 19 patients. With the McNemar test, we evaluated the dependency between language lateralization in the cerebrum and cerebellum, and with Pearson correlation analysis, the relationship between the cerebral and cerebellar lateralization indices. RESULTS: There was a significant dependency between cerebral and cerebellar language activation, with moderate negative correlation (Pearson r = -0.69). Crossed cerebrocerebellar language activation was present in both healthy participants and patients, irrespective of handedness or typical or atypical language representation. There were no discordant findings between fMRI and electrocortical stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Language lateralization in the cerebellum can be considered an additional diagnostic feature to determine language dominance in patients with brain tumor. This is particularly useful in cases of uncertainty, such as the interference of a brain tumor with cerebral language activation on fMRI and atypical language representation.
Authors: G Fernández; A de Greiff; J von Oertzen; M Reuber; S Lun; P Klaver; J Ruhlmann; J Reul; C E Elger Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: K J Friston; A P Holmes; J B Poline; P J Grasby; S C Williams; R S Frackowiak; R Turner Journal: Neuroimage Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Marion Smits; Evy Visch-Brink; Caroline K Schraa-Tam; Peter J Koudstaal; Aad van der Lugt Journal: Radiographics Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Christoph Stippich; Nora Rapps; Jens Dreyhaupt; Anita Durst; Bodo Kress; Ernst Nennig; Volker M Tronnier; Klaus Sartor Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jian W Dong; Nicole M Petrovich Brennan; Giana Izzo; Kyung K Peck; Andrei I Holodny Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: C Jandeaux; G Kuchcinski; C Ternynck; A Riquet; X Leclerc; J-P Pruvo; G Soto-Ares Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Djaina Satoer; Elke De Witte; Marion Smits; Roelien Bastiaanse; Arnaud Vincent; Peter Mariën; Evy Visch-Brink Journal: Case Rep Neurol Med Date: 2017-06-22
Authors: Nicholas S Cho; Kyung K Peck; Madeleine N Gene; Mehrnaz Jenabi; Andrei I Holodny Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.224