| Literature DB >> 28804779 |
Jun Hua1,2, Xinyuan Miao1,2, Shruti Agarwal3, Chetan Bettegowda4, Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa5, John Laterra6, Peter C M Van Zijl1,2, James J Pekar1,2, Jay J Pillai3.
Abstract
At present, presurgical functional mapping is the most prevalent clinical application of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Signal dropouts and distortions caused by susceptibility effects in the current standard echo planar imaging (EPI)-based fMRI images are well-known problems and pose a major hurdle for the application of fMRI in several brain regions, many of which are related to language mapping in presurgical planning. Such artifacts are particularly problematic in patients with previous surgical resection cavities, craniotomy hardware, hemorrhage, and vascular malformation. A recently developed T2-prepared (T2prep) fMRI approach showed negligible distortion and dropouts in the entire brain even in the presence of large susceptibility effects. Here, we present initial results comparing T2prep- and multiband EPI-fMRI scans for presurgical language mapping using a sentence completion task in patients with brain tumor and epilepsy. In all patients scanned, T2prep-fMRI showed minimal image artifacts (distortion and dropout) and greater functional sensitivity than EPI-fMRI around the lesions containing blood products and in air-filled cavities. This enhanced sensitivity in T2prep-fMRI was also evidenced by the fact that functional activation during the sentence completion task was detected with T2prep-fMRI but not with EPI-fMRI in the affected areas with the same statistical threshold, whereas cerebrovascular reactivity during a breath-hold task was preserved in these same regions, implying intact neurovascular coupling in these patients. Although further investigations are required to validate these findings with invasive methods such as direct cortical stimulation mapping as the gold standard, this approach provides an alternative method for performing fMRI in brain regions with large susceptibility effects.Entities:
Keywords: distortion; dropout; hemorrhage; implant; presurgical
Year: 2017 PMID: 28804779 PMCID: PMC5552052 DOI: 10.18383/j.tom.2017.00006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tomography ISSN: 2379-1381
Demographic Data and Clinical Information for Patients
| Pt. No. | Sex | Age(years) | Type | Lesion Location | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 57 | Tumor | Left temporal | A patient with residual left temporal lobe glioblastoma (WHO Grade IV). The very high FLAIR regions represent blood products in the cavity, whereas the lower (but still abnormal) signal intensity in more extensive regions represents a combination of vasogenic edema and nonenhancing tumor infiltration. |
| 2 | M | 39 | Tumor | Left frontal opercular and insular | A patient with hemorrhagic glioblastoma. |
| 3 | F | 35 | Epilepsy | Left anterior temporal | A patient with left temporal lobe resection cavity and craniotomy hardware from prior surgery. |
| 4 | M | 27 | Epilepsy | Left anterior frontal and left superior temporal | The two lesions seen in the patient are cavernous malformations. |
Abbreviations: Pt., Patient; FLAIR, fluid attenuated inversion recovery.
Figure 1.Representative echo planar imaging (EPI) and T2-prepared (T2prep) blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and anatomical (fluid attenuated inversion recovery [FLAIR]) images from patient 2 described in Table 1. Raw images at original spatial resolution in respective scans before preprocessing are shown. Slice numbers in the EPI and T2prep BOLD scans are indicated at the top of each column. Slices from different scans are approximately aligned. Note that anatomical (FLAIR) images were acquired at a much higher spatial resolution than the EPI and BOLD fMRI images. Linear shim was applied in T2prep BOLD. Optimal high-order shim was used in gradient-echo (GRE) EPI BOLD.
Figure 2.Functional MRI results from patient 1 described in Table 1. Activated voxels during the sentence completion task using T2prep BOLD fMRI overlaid on the original T2prep BOLD and coregistered anatomical (FLAIR) images, respectively (A, B). Activated voxels during the sentence completion task using GRE EPI BOLD fMRI overlaid on the EPI and anatomical (FLAIR) images, respectively (C, D). Voxels with positive cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) (“activated”) during the breath-hold task using T2prep BOLD fMRI overlaid on the T2prep BOLD and anatomical (FLAIR) images, respectively (E, F). Note that the anatomical (FLAIR) images displayed here were down-sampled to match the original spatial resolution of the fMRI images. The activated voxels are highlighted with their t-scores. The scale bar on the right indicates the range of t-scores in the highlighted voxels. The yellow and red arrows point to the inferior frontal and superior temporal lobes, respectively (2 important language regions in the brain).
Figure 3.Functional MRI results from patient 4 described in Table 1. Activated voxels during the sentence completion task using T2prep BOLD fMRI overlaid on the original T2prep BOLD and coregistered anatomical (FLAIR) images, respectively (A, B). Activated voxels during the sentence completion task using GRE EPI BOLD fMRI overlaid on the EPI and anatomical (FLAIR) images, respectively (C, D). Voxels with positive CVR (“activated”) during the breath-hold task using T2prep BOLD fMRI overlaid on the T2prep BOLD and anatomical (FLAIR) images, respectively (E, F). Note that the anatomical (FLAIR) images displayed here were down-sampled to match the original spatial resolution of the fMRI images. The activated voxels are highlighted with their t-scores. The scale bar on the right indicates the range of t-scores in the highlighted voxels. The yellow and red arrows point to the inferior frontal and superior temporal lobes, respectively (two important language regions in the brain).
Individual Quantitative fMRI Results for Language Mapping (Sentence Completion) from all Patients
| Patient 1 | Patient 2 | Patient 3 | Patient 4 | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ΔS/S (%)[ | 0.54 ± 0.29 | 0.87 ± 0.13 | 1.14 ± 0.25 | 0.64 ± 0.40 | 0.80 ± 0.23 |
| tSNR[ | 57.54 ± 24.63 | 76.99 ± 24.56 | 46.77 ± 19.90 | 30.99 ± 16.23 | 53.07 ± 16.73 |
| CNR[ | 31.11 ± 7.09 | 67.13 ± 3.09 | 53.32 ± 4.96 | 19.87 ± 6.53 | 42.86 ± 18.47 |
| ΔS/S (%) | 0.67 ± 0.12 | 0.79 ± 0.14 | 1.06 ± 0.21 | 0.57 ± 0.18 | 0.77 ± 0.18 |
| tSNR | 50.64 ± 26.67 | 76.30 ± 34.15 | 46.12 ± 22.27 | 31.04 ± 19.20 | 51.03 ± 16.30 |
| CNR | 34.15 ± 3.20 | 59.99 ± 4.78 | 48.89 ± 4.60 | 17.69 ± 3.54 | 40.18 ± 15.90 |
| ΔS/S (%) | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.94 ± 0.21 | 0.25 ± 0.09 | 0.38 ± 0.32 |
| tSNR | 41.87 ± 22.19 | 46.02 ± 26.32 | 41.78 ± 10.76 | 36.95 ± 11.36 | 41.65 ± 3.21 |
| CNR | 8.41 ± 1.11 | 6.51 ± 0.79 | 39.27 ± 2.21 | 9.24 ± 1.02 | 15.86 ± 13.55 |
| ΔS/S (%) | 0.05 ± 0.07 | -0.16 ± 0.10 | −0.28 ± 0.29 | −0.01 ± 0.22 | −0.10 ± 0.13 |
| tSNR | 40.23 ± 41.05 | 36.83 ± 31.80 | 40.36 ± 32.80 | 42.34 ± 24.66 | 39.94 ± 1.98 |
| CNR | 2.01 ± 2.80 | −5.89 ± 3.14 | −11.30 ± 9.58 | −0.42 ± 5.42 | −3.90 ± 5.14 |
| ΔS/S (%) | 0.17 ± 0.05 | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.37 ± 0.11 | 0.17 ± 0.11 | 0.22 ± 0.09 |
| tSNR | 77.92 ± 31.90 | 91.17 ± 33.70 | 53.70 ± 28.58 | 39.99 ± 25.30 | 65.70 ± 20.02 |
| CNR | 13.25 ± 1.61 | 14.59 ± 1.81 | 19.87 ± 3.24 | 6.87 ± 2.78 | 13.64 ± 4.63 |
| ΔS/S (%) | −0.06 ± 0.04 | 0.02 ± 0.05 | 0.21 ± 0.15 | 0.03 ± 0.09 | 0.05 ± 0.10 |
| tSNR | 70.16 ± 57.22 | 96.70 ± 56.06 | 54.20 ± 31.01 | 55.42 ± 28.27 | 69.12 ± 17.12 |
| CNR | −4.21 ± 2.42 | 1.93 ± 2.92 | 11.38 ± 4.65 | 1.56 ± 2.62 | 2.67 ± 5.59 |
Abbreviations: T2prep, T2-prepared; tSNR, temporal signal-to-noise ratio; CNR, contrast-to-noise ratio; EPI, echo planar imaging.
aSignals averaged over all activated voxels in respective scans.
bSignals averaged over all voxels (including voxels that did not meet the activation detection criteria described in Methodology) in the inferior frontal and superior temporal lobes, respectively. Regions of interest (ROIs) were manually drawn on the anatomical (FLAIR) image for each subject. The same ROI was used for all scans from each patient.
cRelative signal change (ΔS/S), tSNR, and CNR are defined in Methodology.
Statistical Comparison of Quantitative fMRI Results Between T2prep and EPI BOLD fMRI (n = 8)[†]
| T2prep | EPI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ΔS/S (%)[ | 1.58 ± 0.43 | 1.62 ± 0.46 | .872 |
| tSNR[ | 61.33 ± 13.20 | 58.11 ± 14.07 | .877 |
| CNR[ | 97.51 ± 24.77 | 94.52 ± 20.55 | .823 |
| ΔS/S (%) | 0.73 ± 0.37 | 0.23 ± 0.11 | .001 |
| tSNR | 44.66 ± 5.11 | 38.99 ± 6.12 | .576 |
| CNR | 33.45 ± 17.15 | 5.96 ± 4.39 | .012 |
| ΔS/S (%) | 0.47 ± 0.25 | 0.25 ± 0.14 | .049 |
| tSNR | 68.89 ± 20.17 | 64.12 ± 18.03 | .828 |
| CNR | 31.79 ± 8.02 | 14.20 ± 4.81 | .042 |
Abbreviations: T2prep, T2-prepared; tSNR, temporal signal-to-noise ratio; CNR, contrast-to-noise ratio; EPI, echo planar imaging.
†Each method was performed twice (2 tasks: sentence completion and breath-hold) in all 4 patients, therefore n = 8.
*P values <.05.
aSignals averaged over all activated voxels in respective scans.
bSignals averaged over all voxels (including voxels that did not meet the activation detection criteria described in Methodology) in the inferior frontal and superior temporal lobes, respectively. Regions of interest (ROIs) were manually drawn on the anatomical (FLAIR) image for each patient. The same ROI was used for all scans from each subject.
cRelative signal change (ΔS/S), tSNR, and CNR are defined in Methodology.