Ravindra Arya1, Paul S Horn2, Nathan E Crone3. 1. Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Division of Neurology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Electronic address: Ravindra.Arya@cchmc.org. 2. Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Division of Neurology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis compared diagnostic validity of electrocorticographic (ECoG) high-γ modulation (HGM) with electrical stimulation mapping (ESM) for presurgical language localization. METHODS: From a structured literature search, studies with electrode level data comparing ECoG HGM and ESM for language localization were included in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included global measures of diagnostic validity: area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR); as well as pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Clinical and technical determinants of sensitivity/specificity were explored. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in qualitative synthesis, and 10 studies included in the meta-analysis (number of patients 1-17, mean age 10.3-53.6years). Overt picture naming was the most commonly used task for language mapping with either method. Electrocorticographic high-γ modulation was analyzed at 50-400Hz with different bandwidths in individual studies. For ESM, pulse duration, train duration, and maximum current varied greatly among studies. Sensitivity (0.23-0.99), specificity (0.48-0.96), and DOR (1.45-376.28) varied widely across studies. The pooled estimates are: sensitivity 0.61 (95% CI 0.44, 0.76), specificity 0.79 (95% CI 0.68, 0.88), and DOR 6.44 (95% CI 3.47, 11.94). Area under the SROC curve was 0.77. Results of bivariate meta-regression were limited by small samples for individual variables. CONCLUSION: Electrocorticographic high-γ modulation is a specific but not sensitive method for language localization compared with gold-standard ESM. Given the pooled DOR of 6.44 and AUC of 0.77, ECoG HGM can fairly reliably ascertain electrodes overlying ESM cortical language sites.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis compared diagnostic validity of electrocorticographic (ECoG) high-γ modulation (HGM) with electrical stimulation mapping (ESM) for presurgical language localization. METHODS: From a structured literature search, studies with electrode level data comparing ECoG HGM and ESM for language localization were included in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included global measures of diagnostic validity: area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR); as well as pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Clinical and technical determinants of sensitivity/specificity were explored. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in qualitative synthesis, and 10 studies included in the meta-analysis (number of patients 1-17, mean age 10.3-53.6years). Overt picture naming was the most commonly used task for language mapping with either method. Electrocorticographic high-γ modulation was analyzed at 50-400Hz with different bandwidths in individual studies. For ESM, pulse duration, train duration, and maximum current varied greatly among studies. Sensitivity (0.23-0.99), specificity (0.48-0.96), and DOR (1.45-376.28) varied widely across studies. The pooled estimates are: sensitivity 0.61 (95% CI 0.44, 0.76), specificity 0.79 (95% CI 0.68, 0.88), and DOR 6.44 (95% CI 3.47, 11.94). Area under the SROC curve was 0.77. Results of bivariate meta-regression were limited by small samples for individual variables. CONCLUSION: Electrocorticographic high-γ modulation is a specific but not sensitive method for language localization compared with gold-standard ESM. Given the pooled DOR of 6.44 and AUC of 0.77, ECoG HGM can fairly reliably ascertain electrodes overlying ESM cortical language sites.
Authors: Alonso Zea Vera; Gewalin Aungaroon; Paul S Horn; Anna W Byars; Hansel M Greiner; Jeffrey R Tenney; Todd M Arthur; Nathan E Crone; Katherine D Holland; Francesco T Mangano; Ravindra Arya Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Milena Korostenskaja; Po-Ching Chen; Christine M Salinas; Michael Westerveld; Peter Brunner; Gerwin Schalk; Jane C Cook; James Baumgartner; Ki H Lee Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: M Genetti; R Tyrand; F Grouiller; A M Lascano; S Vulliemoz; L Spinelli; M Seeck; K Schaller; C M Michel Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Harish RaviPrakash; Milena Korostenskaja; Eduardo M Castillo; Ki H Lee; Christine M Salinas; James Baumgartner; Syed M Anwar; Concetto Spampinato; Ulas Bagci Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Yujing Wang; Mark A Hays; Christopher Coogan; Joon Y Kang; Adeen Flinker; Ravindra Arya; Anna Korzeniewska; Nathan E Crone Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 3.169