| Literature DB >> 29876257 |
Arthur Coget1, Jérémy Deverdun2, Alain Bonafé3, Liesjet van Dokkum4, Hugues Duffau5, François Molino6, Emmanuelle Le Bars7, Nicolas Menjot de Champfleur8.
Abstract
Background and purpose: The aim of this longitudinal study is to evaluate large-scale perioperative resting state networks reorganization in patients with diffuse low-grade gliomas following awake surgery. Materials and methods: Eighty-two patients with diffuse low-grade gliomas were prospectively enrolled and underwent awake surgical resection. Resting-state functional images were acquired at three time points: preoperative (MRI-1), immediate postoperative (MRI-2) and three months after surgery (MRI-3). We simultaneously performed perfusion-weighted imaging.Entities:
Keywords: Brain mapping; DLGG, diffuse low-grade glioma; FA, fractional anisotropy; Functional neuroimaging; Glioma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neuronal plasticity; Neurosurgery; RS, resting state; VMHC, voxel mirrored homotopic connectivity; fMRI, functional MRI; rCBF, relative cerebral blood flow
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29876257 PMCID: PMC5987867 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.02.023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Characteristics of the patients.
| Characteristics of the patients | Number | Mean (SD) % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All patients | 82 | ||
| 3.0 T magnet | 60 | 73.17% | |
| 1.5T magnet | 22 | 26.83% | |
| Age | 38.11 (8.71) | ||
| Gender | Male | 40 | 48.78% |
| Female | 42 | 51.22% | |
| Handedness | Right | 67 | 81.71% |
| Left | 8 | 9.76% | |
| Ambidextrous | 7 | 8.54% | |
| Tumor side | Right hemisphere | 29 | 35.37% |
| Left hemisphere | 53 | 64.63% | |
| Location | Frontal lobe | 30 | 36.59% |
| Frontoinsular | 7 | 8.54% | |
| Temporal lobe | 10 | 12.2% | |
| Temporoinsular | 6 | 7.32% | |
| Insula | 5 | 6.1% | |
| Frontotemporoinsular | 19 | 23.17% | |
| Parietal | 5 | 6.1% | |
| Histopathology | Oligoastrocytoma, Grade II | 66 | 80.49% |
| Oligoastrocytoma, Grade III | 2 | 2.44% | |
| Oligodendroglioma, Grade II | 7 | 8.54% | |
| Oligodendroglioma, Grade III | 3 | 3.66% | |
| Diffuse low grade glioma (no available histopathologic precision) | 2 | 2.44% | |
| Ganglioglioma, Grade I | 2 | 2.44% | |
| Mean volumes (mm3) | |||
| MRI-1 | Preoperative tumor | 52.26 (40.23) | |
| MRI-2 | Operative cavity | 38.14 (23.67) | |
| Residual tumor | 13.82 (15.44) | ||
| MRI-3 | Operative cavity | 33.11 (23.36) | |
| Residual tumor | 14.23 (15.92) | ||
| Transient immediate postoperative deficits | Aphasia | 33 | 40.24% |
| Sensorimotor deficit | 11 | 13.41% | |
| Cognitive deficit | 1 | 1.22% | |
| No deficit | 40 | 48.78% | |
Histopathology is based on the 2007 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (Louis et al., 2007). Patients were scanned successively before surgery (MRI-1), immediately after surgery, within 36 h following surgery (MRI-2), and three months after surgery (MRI-3).
Connectivity analysis with CONN toolbox comparing MRI-1 and MRI-2.
| ROI | MNI coordinates | ROI | MNI coordinates | T | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angular_L | (−44; −61; 36) | – | Angular_R | (46; −60; 39) | 4.57 | <0.01 |
| Angular_R | (46; −60; 39) | – | Angular_L | (−44; −61; 36) | 3.96 | 0.04 |
| Calcarine_R | (16; −73; 9) | – | Calcarine_L | (−7; −79; 6) | 4.02 | 0.03 |
| Caudate_L | (−11; 11; 9) | – | Caudate_R | (15; 12; 9) | 4.59 | 0.01 |
| Caudate_R | (15; 12; 9) | – | Caudate_L | (−11; 11; 9) | 5.03 | <0.01 |
| Cingulum_Ant_L | (−4; 35; 14) | – | Cingulum_Ant_R | (8; 37;16) | 4.19 | 0.02 |
| Cingulum_Ant_R | (8; 37;16) | – | Cingulum_Ant_L | (−4; 35; 14) | 4.04 | 0.03 |
| Cingulum_Mid_L | (−5; −15; 42) | – | Cingulum_Mid_R | (8; −9; 40) | 4.60 | 0.01 |
| Cingulum_Mid_R | (8; −9; 40) | – | Cingulum_Mid_L | (−5; −15; 42) | 4.60 | 0.01 |
| Cingulum_Post_L | (−5; −43; 25) | – | Cingulum_Post_R | (7; −42; 22) | 5.90 | <0.01 |
| Cingulum_Post_R | (7; −42; 22) | – | Cingulum_Post_L | (−5; −43; 25) | 5.69 | <0.01 |
| Frontal_Inf_Tri_L | (−46; 30; 14) | – | Frontal_Inf_Tri_R | (50; 30; 14) | 4.69 | 0.01 |
| Frontal_Inf_Tri_R | (50; 30; 14) | – | Frontal_Inf_Tri_L | (−46; 30; 14) | 3.84 | <0.05 |
| Frontal_Mid_L | (−33; 33; 35) | – | Frontal_Mid_R | (38; 33; 34) | 4.65 | 0.01 |
| Frontal_Mid_R | (38; 33; 34) | – | Frontal_Mid_L | (−33; 33; 35) | 4.62 | 0.01 |
| Frontal_Mid_Orb_R | (33; 53; −11) | – | Frontal_Sup_R | (22; 31; 44) | 3.98 | 0.03 |
| Frontal_Sup_R | (22; 31; 44) | – | Frontal_Mid_Orb_R | (33; 53; −11) | 4.00 | 0.03 |
| Frontal_Sup_Medial_L | (−5; 49; 31) | – | Frontal_Med_Orb_L | (−5; 54; −7) | 4.11 | 0.03 |
| Insula_L | (−35; 7; 3) | – | Insula_R | (39; 6; 2) | 4.33 | 0.01 |
| Insula_R | (39; 6; 2) | – | Insula_L | (−35; 7; 3) | 4.41 | 0.01 |
| Occipital_Mid_R | (37; −80; 19) | – | Occipital_Mid_L | (−32; −81; 16) | 5.76 | <0.01 |
| Parietal_Inf_R | (46; −46; 50) | – | Parietal_Inf_L | (−43; 46; 47) | 3.89 | 0.04 |
| Postcentral_L | (−42; −23; 49) | – | Postcentral_R | (41; −25; 53) | 8.17 | <0.01 |
| Postcentral_R | (41; −25; 53) | – | Postcentral_L | (−42; −23; 49) | 7.00 | <0.01 |
| Precuneus_L | (−7; −56; 48) | – | Precuneus_R | (10; −56; 44) | 5.87 | <0.01 |
| Precuneus_R | (10; −56; 44) | – | Precuneus_L | (−7; −56; 48) | 5.34 | <0.01 |
| Putamen_L | (−24; 4; 2) | – | Putamen_R | (28; 5; 2) | 6.01 | <0.01 |
| Putamen_R | (28; 5; 2) | – | Putamen_L | (−24; 4; 2) | 6.00 | <0.01 |
| SupraMarginal_L | (−56; − 34; 30) | – | SupraMarginal_R | (58; −32; 34) | 5.27 | <0.01 |
| SupraMarginal_R | (58; −32; 34) | – | SupraMarginal_L | (−56; − 34; 30) | 4.23 | 0.02 |
| Thalamus_L | (−11; −18; 8) | – | Thalamus_R | (13; −18; 8) | 5.30 | <0.01 |
| Thalamus_R | (13; −18; 8) | – | Thalamus_L | (−11; −18; 8) | 5.48 | <0.01 |
Patients were scanned successively before surgery (MRI-1) and immediately after surgery, within 36 h following surgery (MRI-2). All reported P values are found significant with an analysis-level FDR correction for the hypothesis of a decrease in functional connectivity from MRI-1 to MRI-2. Names of the ROIs refer to the AAL atlas. Abbreviations: L: left; R: right.
Fig. 1Functional connectivity variations using CONN toolbox.
Patients were scanned successively before surgery (MRI-1), immediately after surgery, within 36 h following surgery (MRI-2), and three months after surgery (MRI-3). A ROI-to-ROI multivariate regression approach was performed on CONN (threshold 0.05, analysis-level FDR correction).
Comparison of MRI-1 and MRI-2 (Fig. A, axial section) (Fig. B, 3D superior view) show a functional homotopy decrease (yellow to red lines).
Comparison of MRI-2 and MRI-3 (Fig. C, axial section) (Fig. D, 3D superior view) show a functional homotopy increase (blue lines).
Connectivity analysis with CONN toolbox comparing MRI-2 and MRI-3.
| ROI | MNI coordinates | ROI | MNI coordinates | T | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cingulum_Post_L | (−5; −43; 25) | – | Cingulum_Post_R | (7; −42; 22) | −4.87 | <0.01 |
| Cingulum_Post_R | (7; −42; 22) | – | Cingulum_Post_L | (−5; −43; 25) | −4.91 | <0.01 |
| Frontal_Sup_Medial_L | (−5; 49; 31) | – | Frontal_Med_Orb_L | (−5; 54; −7) | −5.35 | <0.01 |
| Parietal_Inf_L | (−43; 46; 47) | – | Parietal_Inf_R | (46; −46; 50) | −4.93 | <0.01 |
| Parietal_Inf_R | (46; −46; 50) | – | Parietal_Inf_L | (−43; 46; 47) | −4.57 | 0.01 |
| Postcentral_L | (−42; −23; 49) | – | Postcentral_R | (41; −25; 53) | −5.84 | <0.01 |
| Postcentral_R | (41; −25; 53) | – | Postcentral_L | (−42; −23; 49) | −4.97 | <0.01 |
| Precuneus_L | (−7; −56; 48) | – | Precuneus_R | (10; −56; 44) | −6.57 | <0.01 |
| Precuneus_R | (10; −56; 44) | – | Precuneus_L | (−7; −56; 48) | −6.52 | <0.01 |
| Putamen_L | (−24; 4; 2) | – | Putamen_R | (28; 5; 2) | −4.18 | 0.04 |
| Putamen_R | (28; 5; 2) | – | Putamen_L | (−24; 4; 2) | −4.44 | 0.02 |
| SupraMarginal_L | (−56; − 34; 30) | – | SupraMarginal_R | (58; −32; 34) | −5.36 | <0.01 |
| SupraMarginal_R | (58; −32; 34) | – | SupraMarginal_L | (−56; − 34; 30) | −4.30 | 0.03 |
Patients were scanned successively immediately after surgery, within 36 h following surgery (MRI-2), and three months after surgery (MRI-3). All reported P values are found significant with an analysis-level FDR correction for the hypothesis of an increase in functional connectivity from MRI-2 to MRI-3. Names of the ROIs refer to the AAL atlas. Abbreviations: L: left; R: right.
Fig. 2Functional connectivity analysis using VMHC.
Analysis using VMHC comparing MRI-1, MRI-2 and MRI-3 (P < 0.05; FWE-corrected).
The upper row figures the comparison between MRI-1 and MRI-2 (Fig. A: right lateral view; Fig. B: left lateral view; Fig. C: coronal section). A significant functional homotopic connectivity decrease is seen in supratentorial cortical regions and thalami.
The lower row figures the comparison between MRI-2 and MRI-3 (Fig. D: right lateral view; Fig. E: left lateral view; Fig. F: coronal section). A significant functional homotopic connectivity increase is seen in frontal and parietal lobes and thalami.