Prashin Unadkat1,2, Luca Fumagalli1,3, Laura Rigolo1, Mark G Vangel4, Geoffrey S Young2, Raymond Huang2, Srinivasan Mukundan2, Alexandra Golby1,2, Yanmei Tie1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. School of Medicine and Surgery, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Language task-based functional MRI (fMRI) is increasingly used for presurgical planning in patients with brain lesions. Different paradigms elicit activations of different components of the language network. The aim of this study is to optimize fMRI clinical usage by comparing the effectiveness of three language tasks for language lateralization and localization in a large group of patients with brain lesions. METHODS: We analyzed fMRI data from a sequential retrospective cohort of 51 patients with brain lesions who underwent presurgical fMRI language mapping. We compared the effectiveness of three language tasks (Antonym Generation, Sentence Completion (SC), and Auditory Naming) for lateralizing language function and for activating cortex within patient-specific regions-of-interest representing eloquent language areas, and assessed the degree of spatial overlap of the areas of activation elicited by each task. RESULTS: The tasks were similarly effective for lateralizing language within the anterior language areas. The SC task produced higher laterality indices within the posterior language areas and had a significantly higher agreement with the clinical report. Dice coefficients between the task pairs were in the range of .351-.458, confirming substantial variation in the components of the language network activated by each task. CONCLUSIONS: SC task consistently produced large activations within the dominant hemisphere and was more effective for lateralizing language within the posterior language areas. The low degree of spatial overlap among the tasks strongly supports the practice of using a battery of tasks to help the surgeon to avoid eloquent language areas.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Language task-based functional MRI (fMRI) is increasingly used for presurgical planning in patients with brain lesions. Different paradigms elicit activations of different components of the language network. The aim of this study is to optimize fMRI clinical usage by comparing the effectiveness of three language tasks for language lateralization and localization in a large group of patients with brain lesions. METHODS: We analyzed fMRI data from a sequential retrospective cohort of 51 patients with brain lesions who underwent presurgical fMRI language mapping. We compared the effectiveness of three language tasks (Antonym Generation, Sentence Completion (SC), and Auditory Naming) for lateralizing language function and for activating cortex within patient-specific regions-of-interest representing eloquent language areas, and assessed the degree of spatial overlap of the areas of activation elicited by each task. RESULTS: The tasks were similarly effective for lateralizing language within the anterior language areas. The SC task produced higher laterality indices within the posterior language areas and had a significantly higher agreement with the clinical report. Dice coefficients between the task pairs were in the range of .351-.458, confirming substantial variation in the components of the language network activated by each task. CONCLUSIONS: SC task consistently produced large activations within the dominant hemisphere and was more effective for lateralizing language within the posterior language areas. The low degree of spatial overlap among the tasks strongly supports the practice of using a battery of tasks to help the surgeon to avoid eloquent language areas.
Authors: S Partovi; B Jacobi; N Rapps; L Zipp; S Karimi; F Rengier; J K Lyo; C Stippich Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Bornali Kundu; Amy Penwarden; Joel M Wood; Thomas A Gallagher; Matthew J Andreoli; Jed Voss; Timothy Meier; Veena A Nair; John S Kuo; Aaron S Field; Chad Moritz; M Elizabeth Meyerand; Vivek Prabhakaran Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: W D Gaillard; L Balsamo; B Xu; C McKinney; P H Papero; S Weinstein; J Conry; P L Pearl; B Sachs; S Sato; L G Vezina; C Frattali; W H Theodore Journal: Neurology Date: 2004-10-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Matthew J McGirt; Debraj Mukherjee; Kaisorn L Chaichana; Khoi D Than; Jon D Weingart; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Anthony T Lee; Claire Faltermeier; Ramin A Morshed; Jacob S Young; Sofia Kakaizada; Claudia Valdivia; Anne M Findlay; Phiroz E Tarapore; Srikantan S Nagarajan; Shawn L Hervey-Jumper; Mitchel S Berger Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Lok Wa Laura Leung; Prashin Unadkat; Melina More Bertotti; Wenya Linda Bi; Walid Ibn Essayed; Adomas Bunevicius; Vamsidhar Chavakula; Laura Rigolo; Luca Fumagalli; Ziyun Tie; Alexandra J Golby; Yanmei Tie Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Dhiego Chaves De Almeida Bastos; Parikshit Juvekar; Yanmei Tie; Nick Jowkar; Steve Pieper; Willam M Wells; Wenya Linda Bi; Alexandra Golby; Sarah Frisken; Tina Kapur Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Shun Yao; Einat Liebenthal; Parikshit Juvekar; Adomas Bunevicius; Matthew Vera; Laura Rigolo; Alexandra J Golby; Yanmei Tie Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Justyna O Ekert; Matthew A Kirkman; Mohamed L Seghier; David W Green; Cathy J Price Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Luca Pasquini; Alberto Di Napoli; Maria Camilla Rossi-Espagnet; Emiliano Visconti; Antonio Napolitano; Andrea Romano; Alessandro Bozzao; Kyung K Peck; Andrei I Holodny Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 3.169