Jérôme Cochereau1,2,3,4, Jérémy Deverdun2,4,5,6, Guillaume Herbet1,3, Céline Charroud2,4, Anthony Boyer2,7, Sylvie Moritz-Gasser1,3, Emmanuelle Le Bars2,4,6, François Molino5,6, Alain Bonafé2,3,4, Nicolas Menjot de Champfleur2,3,4,6, Hugues Duffau1,3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Montpellier University Hospital Center, Gui de Chauliac Hospital, Montpellier, France. 2. Unité I2FH, Institut d'Imagerie Fonctionnelle Humaine, Montpellier University Hospital Center, Gui de Chauliac Hospital, Montpellier, France. 3. Team "Plasticity of Central Nervous System, Stem Cells and Glial Tumors", INSERM U1051, Institute of Neurosciences of Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 4. Department of Neuroradiology, Montpellier University Hospital Center, Gui de Chauliac Hospital, Montpellier, France. 5. Institut de Génomique Fonctionnelle, Unité UMR 5203 - INSERM U661 - Université Montpellier II - Université Montpellier I, France. 6. Laboratoire Charles Coulomb, Unité CNRS UMR 5221 - Université Montpellier II, Montpellier, France. 7. University of Montpellier 2, LIRMM laboratory, DEMAR Team, CNRS, INRIA, Montpellier, 34095, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To validate the functional relevance of resting state networks (RSNs) by means of a comparison of resting state connectivity (RSC) between language regions elicited by direct cortical stimulation versus RSC between random regions; and to evaluate the accuracy of resting state fMRI in surgical planning by assessing the overlap between RSNs and intraoperative functional mapping results. METHODS: Sensorimotor and language eloquent sites were identified by direct electrical cortical stimulation in 98 patients with a diffuse low-grade glioma. A seed to voxel analysis with inter-language stimulation point connectivity versus inter-random ROIs connectivity was performed (19 patients). An independant component analysis (ICA) was also applied to rsfMRI data. Language and sensorimotor components were selected over 20 independent components and compared to the corresponding stimulation points and resected cortex masks (31 and 90 patients, respectively). RESULTS: Mean connectivity value between language seeds was significantly higher than the one between random seeds (0.68 ± 0.39 and 0.12 ± 0.21 respectively, P < 10-10 ). 96 ± 11% of sensorimotor stimulation points were located within 10 mm from sensorimotor ICA maps versus 92 ± 21% for language. 3.1 and 15% of resected cortex overlapped sensorimotor and language networks, respectively. Mean sensorimotor stimulation points and resected cortex z-scores were 2.0 ± 1.2 and -0.050 ± 0.60, respectively (P < 10-10 ). Mean language stimulation points and resected cortex z-scores were 1.6 ± 1.9 and 0.68 ± 0.91, respectively, P < 0.005. CONCLUSION: The significantly higher RSC between language seeds than between random seeds validated the functional relevance of RSC. ICA partly succeeded to distinguish eloquent versus surgically removable areas and may be possibly used as a complementary tool to intraoperative mapping. Hum Brain Mapp 37:3721-3732, 2016.
OBJECTIVES: To validate the functional relevance of resting state networks (RSNs) by means of a comparison of resting state connectivity (RSC) between language regions elicited by direct cortical stimulation versus RSC between random regions; and to evaluate the accuracy of resting state fMRI in surgical planning by assessing the overlap between RSNs and intraoperative functional mapping results. METHODS: Sensorimotor and language eloquent sites were identified by direct electrical cortical stimulation in 98 patients with a diffuse low-grade glioma. A seed to voxel analysis with inter-language stimulation point connectivity versus inter-random ROIs connectivity was performed (19 patients). An independant component analysis (ICA) was also applied to rsfMRI data. Language and sensorimotor components were selected over 20 independent components and compared to the corresponding stimulation points and resected cortex masks (31 and 90 patients, respectively). RESULTS: Mean connectivity value between language seeds was significantly higher than the one between random seeds (0.68 ± 0.39 and 0.12 ± 0.21 respectively, P < 10-10 ). 96 ± 11% of sensorimotor stimulation points were located within 10 mm from sensorimotor ICA maps versus 92 ± 21% for language. 3.1 and 15% of resected cortex overlapped sensorimotor and language networks, respectively. Mean sensorimotor stimulation points and resected cortex z-scores were 2.0 ± 1.2 and -0.050 ± 0.60, respectively (P < 10-10 ). Mean language stimulation points and resected cortex z-scores were 1.6 ± 1.9 and 0.68 ± 0.91, respectively, P < 0.005. CONCLUSION: The significantly higher RSC between language seeds than between random seeds validated the functional relevance of RSC. ICA partly succeeded to distinguish eloquent versus surgically removable areas and may be possibly used as a complementary tool to intraoperative mapping. Hum Brain Mapp 37:3721-3732, 2016.
Authors: Michael D Fox; Abraham Z Snyder; Justin L Vincent; Maurizio Corbetta; David C Van Essen; Marcus E Raichle Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-06-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Philip C De Witt Hamer; Santiago Gil Robles; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Hugues Duffau; Mitchel S Berger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dongyang Zhang; James M Johnston; Michael D Fox; Eric C Leuthardt; Robert L Grubb; Michael R Chicoine; Matthew D Smyth; Abraham Z Snyder; Marcus E Raichle; Joshua S Shimony Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Yanmei Tie; Laura Rigolo; Isaiah H Norton; Raymond Y Huang; Wentao Wu; Daniel Orringer; Srinivasan Mukundan; Alexandra J Golby Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Danhong Wang; Randy L Buckner; Michael D Fox; Daphne J Holt; Avram J Holmes; Sophia Stoecklein; Georg Langs; Ruiqi Pan; Tianyi Qian; Kuncheng Li; Justin T Baker; Steven M Stufflebeam; Kai Wang; Xiaomin Wang; Bo Hong; Hesheng Liu Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Naresh Nandakumar; Komal Manzoor; Shruti Agarwal; Jay J Pillai; Sachin K Gujar; Haris I Sair; Archana Venkataraman Journal: Inf Process Med Imaging Date: 2021-06-14
Authors: Ai-Ling Hsu; Ping Hou; Jason M Johnson; Changwei W Wu; Kyle R Noll; Sujit S Prabhu; Sherise D Ferguson; Vinodh A Kumar; Donald F Schomer; John D Hazle; Jyh-Horng Chen; Ho-Ling Liu Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 4.081
Authors: Karl-Heinz Nenning; Julia Furtner; Barbara Kiesel; Ernst Schwartz; Thomas Roetzer; Nikolaus Fortelny; Christoph Bock; Anna Grisold; Martha Marko; Fritz Leutmezer; Hesheng Liu; Polina Golland; Sophia Stoecklein; Johannes A Hainfellner; Gregor Kasprian; Daniela Prayer; Christine Marosi; Georg Widhalm; Adelheid Woehrer; Georg Langs Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 4.379