| Literature DB >> 34094981 |
Tizian Rosenstock1,2, Mehmet Salih Tuncer1, Max Richard Münch1, Peter Vajkoczy1, Thomas Picht1,3, Katharina Faust1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The resection of a motor-eloquent glioma should be guided by intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM) but its interpretation is often difficult and may (unnecessarily) lead to subtotal resection. Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) combined with diffusion-tensor-imaging (DTI) is able to stratify patients with motor-eloquent lesion preoperatively into high- and low-risk cases with respect to a new motor deficit.Entities:
Keywords: brain tumor surgery; diffusion tensor imaging; glioma; intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM); motor outcome; motor-evoked potential (MEP); navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS); subcortical stimulation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34094981 PMCID: PMC8175894 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.676626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Visualization of our workflow. A 65-year-old man suffered from headache and personality changes. Cerebral MRI showed an insular, contrast-enhancing tumor in the right hemisphere (A). An nTMS motor mapping was performed for the upper extremity, lower extremity, and facial muscles to define the individual cortical motor representation and to investigate the individual excitability level of the patients, which showed a normal RMTratio between 90% and 110%. Standardized nTMS-based tractography revealed a TTD of 2 mm, so that a total of 1 of 3 risk factors was detectable. Tumor resection was performed using MEPs, SSEPs, and SCS, with SCS guided by the mapping suction probe at a minimum intensity of 2mA. The MEPs showed changes two times, so resection was paused each time and irrigated with papaverine until the MEPs recovered (B). MRI resection control showed a good result with no evidence of residual tumor (C). The patient did not suffer a new motor deficit.
Patient sample.
| n = 66 | |
|---|---|
|
| 48y (28) |
|
| |
| Female | 27 (40.9%) |
| Male | 39 (59.1%) |
|
| 90 (13) |
|
| |
| 0-3 | 5 (7.6%) |
| 4 | 7 (10.6%) |
| 5 | 54 (81.8%) |
|
| |
| R | 37 (56.1%) |
| L | 29 (43.9%) |
|
| |
| Frontal | 23 (34.8%) |
| Parietal | 18 (27.3%) |
| Temporo-insular | 22 (33.3%) |
| Multilocular | 3 (4.5%) |
|
| |
| WHO II° | 10 (15.2%) |
| WHO III° | 17 (25.8%) |
| WHO IV° | 39 (59.1%) |
|
| 22 (33.3%) |
|
| 23.35 (32.58) |
|
| 36 (54.5%) |
|
| |
| MEP | 61 (92.4%) |
| SSEP | 29 (43.9%) |
| SCS | 53 (80.3%) |
|
| |
| Day of Discharge | |
| Worsening | 11 (16.7%) |
| No Worsening | 55 (83.3%) |
| 3 Months postop. | |
| missings1 | 5 (7.6%) |
| Persistent Worsening | 6 (9.1%) |
| Partial Recovery | 3 (4.5%) |
| No Worsening | 52 (78.8%) |
|
| |
| GTR | 46 (65.7%) |
| STR | 20 (28.6%) |
| PR | 4 (5.7%) |
13 patients with tumor progression, 1 patient died, and 1 patient lived in another city; KPS, Karnofsky Performance Scale; BMRC, motor status according to the British Medical Research Counsil; CST, corticospinal tract; MEP, motor evoked potentials; SSEP, somatosensory evoked potentials; SCS, subcortical stimulation; GTR, gross total resection; STR, subtotal resection; PR, partial resection.
Figure 2Analysis of nTMS risk factors and long-term motor outcome. No patient suffered a new permanent motor deficit when the RMTratio was between 90% and 110% (A). Only one patient developed a postoperative paresis which recovered partially within 3 months. The lower the TTD was, the higher was the risk of postoperative motor deterioration (B). Note that 4 patients in the worsening group had a TTD of 0 mm. Thus, in addition to the recently proposed safe TTD of 8mm, the entire nTMS risk stratification was confirmed in this cohort (C).
Evaluation of the IOM.
| Short-Term Motor Outcome | Long-Term Motor Outcome | Extent of Resection | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 66 | No Worsening | Worsening | n = 61 | No Worsening | Partial Recovery | Persistent Worsening | GTR | STR | PR | |
|
| 61 (92.4%) | 50 (82%) | 11 (18%) | 57 (93.4%) | 48 (84.2%) | 3 (5.3%) | 6 (10.5%) | 42 (68.9%) | 16 (26.2%) | 3 (4.9%) |
| MEP amplitude stable | 34 (55.7%) | 33 (97.1%) | 1 (2.9%) | 34 (59.6%) | 33 (97.1%) | 1 (2.9%) | 0 | 27 (79.4%) | 6 (17.6%) | 1 (2.9%) |
| MEP amplitude alteration | 27 (44.3%) | 17 (63%) | 10 (37%) | 23 (40.4%) | 15 (65.2%) | 2 (8.7%) | 6 (26.1%) | 15 (55.6%) | 10 (37%) | 2 (7.4%) |
| completely reversible | 11 (40.7%) | 11 (100%) | 0 | 10 (43.5%) | 10 (100%) | 0 | 0 | 7 (63.6%) | 4 (36%) | 0 |
| irreversible + ≤50% decrease | 9 (33.3%) | 4 (44.5%) | 5 (55.6%) | 9 (39.1%) | 4 (44.4%) | 2 (22.2%) | 3 (33.3%) | 7 (77.8%) | 2 (22.2%) | 0 |
| irreversible + >50% decrease | 7 (25.9%) | 2 (28.6%) | 5 (71.4%) | 4 (17.4%) | 1 (25%) | 0 | 3 (75%) | 1 (14.3%) | 4 (57.1%) | 2 (28.6%) |
|
| 53 (80.3%) | 44 (83%) | 9 (17%) | 48 (78.7%) | 41 (85.4%) | 3 (6.3%) | 4 (8.3%) | 33 (62.3%) | 19 (35.8%) | 1 (1.9%) |
| ≤4mA | 13 (24.5%) | 7 (53.8%) | 6 (46.2%) | 11 (22.9%) | 6 (54.5%) | 2 (18.2%) | 3 (27.3%) | 7 (53.8%) | 6 (46.2%) | 0 |
| 5-7mA | 24 (45.3%) | 21 (87.5%) | 3 (12.5%) | 22 (45.8%) | 20 (90.9%) | 1 (4.5%) | 1 (4.5%) | 15 (62.5%) | 8 (33.3%) | 1 (4.2%) |
| >7mA | 16 (30.2%) | 16 (100%) | 0 | 15 (31.3%) | 15 (100%) | 0 | 0 | 11 (68.8%) | 5 (31.3%) | 0 |
|
| 29 (43.9%) | 24 (82.8%) | 5 (17.2%) | 26 (42.6%) | 22 (84.6%) | 1 (3.8%) | 3 (11.5%) | 21 (72.4%) | 7 (24.1%) | 1 (3.4%) |
| SSEP amplitude reversible decrease | 25 (86.2%) | 21 (84%) | 4 (16%) | 23 (88.5%) | 20 (87%) | 1 (4.3%) | 2 (8.7%) | 18 (72%) | 6 (24%) | 1 (4%) |
| SSEP amplitude irreversible decrease | 4 (13.8%) | 3 (75%) | 1 (25%) | 3 (11.5%) | 2 (66.7%) | 0 | 1 (33.3%) | 3 (75%) | 1 (25%) | 0 |
MEP, motor evoked potentials; SCS, subcortical stimulation; SSEP, somatosensory evoked potentials; GTR, gross total resection; STR, subtotal resection; PR, partial resection.
Figure 3Analysis of IOM and long-term motor outcome. An irreversible MEP amplitude decrease >50% resulted in worse motor outcome in 3 of 4 patients (A). An irreversible MEP amplitude decrease ≤50% resulted in a new postoperative motor deficit, particularly in patients with nTMS-verified motor cortex infiltration, that was not present in patients without motor cortex infiltration. A similar correlation could be found for the analysis of the TTD (B). No patient with a TTD >8mm suffered a new motor deficit, independently of whether MEP changes were detected or not. The motor outcome of patients with an irreversible MEP decrease ≤50% is worse, especially in patients with a TTD of 0mm than in patients with a TTD between 1 and 8mm. This phenomenon is also observed for the minimum SCS intensity, where the postoperative motor outcome was worse in the group of patients with a TTD of 0 mm than in the group with a TTD between 1 and 8mm, while the same SCS intensities were used (C).
Figure 4Flowchart showing the association between preoperative nTMS assessment (motor cortex [M1] infiltration and tumor-tract distance [TTD]) and IOM (A - MEP amplitude monitoring and B - SCS intensity).