Clément Nathou1, Grégory Simon2, Sonia Dollfus3, Olivier Etard4. 1. CHU de Caen, Department of Psychiatry, Centre Esquirol, Caen F-14000, France; Unicaen, UFR of Medicine, Caen F-14000, France; Unicaen, UMR 6301, Centre Cyceron, Caen F-14000, France. 2. Unicaen, LaPsyDÉ, Caen F-14000, France; CNRS, UMR 8240 LaPsyDÉ, Paris F-75005, France. 3. CHU de Caen, Department of Psychiatry, Centre Esquirol, Caen F-14000, France; Unicaen, UFR of Medicine, Caen F-14000, France; Unicaen, UMR 6301, Centre Cyceron, Caen F-14000, France. Electronic address: dollfus-s@chu-caen.fr. 4. Unicaen, UFR of Medicine, Caen F-14000, France; CHU de Caen Laboratory of Neurological Functional Exploratory, Caen F-14000, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) shows high inter-subject variability in its efficacy for treating resistant auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia. Currently, the response of an individual patient to rTMS treatment cannot be predicted. It is possible that cortical anatomical characteristics could affect the therapeutic response. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that rTMS efficacy is related to anatomical variations underlying the stimulation target in the left temporal cortex. We investigated two regions of interest (ROIs) that have been implicated in rTMS: the left temporal cortex, where the stimulation is delivered, and the primary hand motor cortex, where the stimulation strength is determined by the resting motor threshold (rMT). METHODS: Fifteen patients with schizophrenia (DSM IV) underwent rTMS and magnetic resonance imaging. The scalp-to-cortex distance (SCD) and the grey matter density (GMD) were measured in both ROIs. Linear regression models were used to investigate the relationships between these measures and the clinical efficacy of rTMS. RESULTS: Treatment efficacy was highly predicted by the temporal SCD and the GMD in the temporal and primary hand motor cortex regions. In contrast, the rMT was not predicted by the primary hand motor cortex SCD or GMD. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that rTMS treatment efficacy could be related to the depth of the temporal target. The data raise the question of whether rMT is the best measure for assessing the stimulation intensity in treating patients with schizophrenia.
BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) shows high inter-subject variability in its efficacy for treating resistant auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia. Currently, the response of an individual patient to rTMS treatment cannot be predicted. It is possible that cortical anatomical characteristics could affect the therapeutic response. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that rTMS efficacy is related to anatomical variations underlying the stimulation target in the left temporal cortex. We investigated two regions of interest (ROIs) that have been implicated in rTMS: the left temporal cortex, where the stimulation is delivered, and the primary hand motor cortex, where the stimulation strength is determined by the resting motor threshold (rMT). METHODS: Fifteen patients with schizophrenia (DSM IV) underwent rTMS and magnetic resonance imaging. The scalp-to-cortex distance (SCD) and the grey matter density (GMD) were measured in both ROIs. Linear regression models were used to investigate the relationships between these measures and the clinical efficacy of rTMS. RESULTS: Treatment efficacy was highly predicted by the temporal SCD and the GMD in the temporal and primary hand motor cortex regions. In contrast, the rMT was not predicted by the primary hand motor cortex SCD or GMD. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that rTMS treatment efficacy could be related to the depth of the temporal target. The data raise the question of whether rMT is the best measure for assessing the stimulation intensity in treating patients with schizophrenia.
Authors: A Hasan; T Wobrock; B Guse; B Langguth; M Landgrebe; P Eichhammer; E Frank; J Cordes; W Wölwer; F Musso; G Winterer; W Gaebel; G Hajak; C Ohmann; P E Verde; M Rietschel; R Ahmed; W G Honer; P Dechent; B Malchow; M F U Castro; D Dwyer; C Cabral; P M Kreuzer; T B Poeppl; T Schneider-Axmann; P Falkai; N Koutsouleris Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Nikolaos Koutsouleris; Thomas Wobrock; Birgit Guse; Berthold Langguth; Michael Landgrebe; Peter Eichhammer; Elmar Frank; Joachim Cordes; Wolfgang Wölwer; Francesco Musso; Georg Winterer; Wolfgang Gaebel; Göran Hajak; Christian Ohmann; Pablo E Verde; Marcella Rietschel; Raees Ahmed; William G Honer; Dominic Dwyer; Farhad Ghaseminejad; Peter Dechent; Berend Malchow; Peter M Kreuzer; Tim B Poeppl; Thomas Schneider-Axmann; Peter Falkai; Alkomiet Hasan Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Joseph J Taylor; John H Krystal; Deepak C D'Souza; Jason Lee Gerrard; Philip R Corlett Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Stephen J Brandt; Halimah Y Oral; Carla Arellano-Bravo; Martin H Plawecki; Tom A Hummer; Michael M Francis Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 7.620
Authors: Colleen P E Rollins; Jane R Garrison; Jon S Simons; James B Rowe; Claire O'Callaghan; Graham K Murray; John Suckling Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2019-02-21
Authors: Simone Rossi; Andrea Antal; Sven Bestmann; Marom Bikson; Carmen Brewer; Jürgen Brockmöller; Linda L Carpenter; Massimo Cincotta; Robert Chen; Jeff D Daskalakis; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro; Michael D Fox; Mark S George; Donald Gilbert; Vasilios K Kimiskidis; Giacomo Koch; Risto J Ilmoniemi; Jean Pascal Lefaucheur; Letizia Leocani; Sarah H Lisanby; Carlo Miniussi; Frank Padberg; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Walter Paulus; Angel V Peterchev; Angelo Quartarone; Alexander Rotenberg; John Rothwell; Paolo M Rossini; Emiliano Santarnecchi; Mouhsin M Shafi; Hartwig R Siebner; Yoshikatzu Ugawa; Eric M Wassermann; Abraham Zangen; Ulf Ziemann; Mark Hallett Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 4.861