| Literature DB >> 34974117 |
Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht1, Simon S Keller2, Lorna Bryant3, Hunter Moss4, Tanja S Kellermann5, Shubhabrata Biswas6, Anthony G Marson2, Janina Wilmskoetter5, Jens H Jensen4, Leonardo Bonilha5.
Abstract
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) tractography has played a critical role in characterizing patterns of aberrant brain network reorganization among patients with epilepsy. However, the accuracy of dMRI tractography is hampered by the complex biophysical properties of white matter tissue. High b-value diffusion imaging overcomes this limitation by better isolating axonal pathways. In this study, we introduce tractography derived from fiber ball imaging (FBI), a high b-value approach which excludes non-axonal signals, to identify atypical neuronal networks in patients with epilepsy. Specifically, we compared network properties obtained from multiple diffusion tractography approaches (diffusion tensor imaging, diffusion kurtosis imaging, FBI) in order to assess the pathophysiological relevance of network rearrangement in medication-responsive vs. medication-refractory adults with focal epilepsy. We show that drug-resistant epilepsy is associated with increased global network segregation detected by FBI-based tractography. We propose exploring FBI as a clinically feasible alternative to quantify topological changes that could be used to track disease progression and inform on clinical outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Diffusion; Fiber ball imaging; Focal epilepsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Tractography
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34974117 PMCID: PMC8872809 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118866
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage ISSN: 1053-8119 Impact factor: 6.556
Demographic and clinical information per participant.
| Patient | Age at evaluation (years) | Gender | Handedness | Patient Group | Age at onset (years) | Presumed Onset Localization | Sz Freq. | Seizure Type | Febrile Seizures | Medications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 33 | M | R | PC | 16 | L Frontal | 2 | FBTC | N | LEV 3250mg |
| 2 | 21 | F | L | PC | 1.5 | L Frontal | 20 | FIAS | Y | ZNS 500 mg, OXC 1600 mg, CLB 10mg |
| 3 | 34 | M | R | PC | 13 | PL Frontal | 1–2 | FBTC | N | LTG 125 mg VPA 2000mg |
| 4 | 18 | M | R | PC | 10 | L Frontal | 6 | FIAS | N | VPA 1000 mg, PHT 250mg |
| 5 | 51 | M | R | PC | 14 | Poorly Localized | 12 | FAS | Y | LEV 2000 mg, LTG 600mg |
| 6 | 26 | M | R | WC | 24 | Poorly Localized | 1–2 | FAS & FIAS | N | LTG 150mg |
| 7 | 48 | F | R | WC | 12 | L Temporal | 0 | FAS & FIAS | N | LTG 250mg |
| 8 | 50 | F | R | PC | 18 | Poorly Localized | 3–6 | FAS | N | LTG 600mg |
| 9 | 32 | M | L | PC | 23 | L Temporal | 1–2 | FAS | N | PHT 350 mg, VPA 1800mg |
| 10 | 51 | F | R | PC | 11 | L Temporal | 14 | FAS | N | CBZ 1000mg |
| 11 | 24 | F | R | WC | 21 | Poorly Localized | 0 | FAS | N | |
| 12 | 36 | F | L | PC | 20 | L Temporal | 15 | FAS & FIAS | N | BRV 100 mg, LCS 250 mg CLB 30mg |
| 13 | 38 | F | R | PC | 17 | L Frontoparietal | 16–20 | FBTC | N | ZNS 200 mg, LTG 600 mg, CLB 40mg |
| 14 | 48 | F | R | PC | 10 | R Temporal | 60 | FBTC | N | LEV 2000mg |
| 15 | 41 | F | R | PC | 27 | Unknown | 30–48 | FBTC | N | OXC 800mg |
| 16 | 33 | M | R | WC | 29 | L Poorly Localized | 0 | FBTC | N | VPA 1400mg |
| 17 | 28 | M | R | PC | 13 | L Temporal | 1 | FIAS | N | |
| 18 | 46 | F | R | WC | 22 | L Temporal | 4 | FAS & FIAS | N | OXC 900 mg, LTG 500 mg, LEV, 1000 mg, CLB 20 g |
| 19 | 60 | M | R | WC | 56 | Unknown | 1 | FAS & FIAS | N | LTG 300mg |
| 20 | 38 | F | R | WC | 30 | R Temporal | 0 | FBTC | Not known | LTG 175mg |
| 21 | 58 | F | L | PC | 11 | L Temporal | ~35 | FIAS | N | CLB 10 mg, LTG 200 mg, ZNS 300mg |
| 22 | 44 | M | R | WC | 39 | R Frontal | 0 | FBTC | N | OXC 1000 mg, LEV 2500 mg, CLB 10mg |
| 23 | 26 | M | R | WC | 21 | PL Temporal | 0 | FAS & FIAS | N | LTG 100mg |
| 24 | 29 | F | R | WC | 22 | L Temporal | 0 | FBTC | N | LTG 75mg |
| 25 | 35 | M | R | WC | 31 | PL Frontal | 0 | FBTC | N | LTG 150mg |
| 26 | 59 | F | R | WC | 54 | Unknown | 1 | FBTC | Y | LEV 1000mg |
| 27 | 54 | M | R | WC | 43 | L Temporal | 2 | FBTC | Y | LEV 1000mg |
| 28 | 51 | F | R/L | WC | 48 | R Frontal | 3 | FBTC | N | LTG 100mg |
| 29 | 38 | F | R | WC | 36 | R Temporal | 2 | FBTC | N | LTG 200mg |
F = Female; M = Male; R = Right; L = Left; PL = Poorly Lateralized; WC = Well-Controlled; PC = Poorly-Controlled; FAS = Focal Aware Seizure; FIAS = Focal Impaired Awareness Seizure; FBTC = Focal to Bilateral Tonic-Clonic Seizure; N = No; Y = Yes; BRV = brivaracetam, CBZ = carbamazepine, CLB = clobazam; LEV = levetiracetam, LTG = lamotrigine, OXC = oxcarbazepine, PHT = phenytoin, VPA = valproic acid, ZNS = zonisamide;
Seizure frequency at the time of last assessment (for well-controlled patients, the value reflects the frequency prior to achieving seizure freedom).
Of note, seizure types listed represent the event types experienced at time of assessment or at the last visit before seizure control was achieved on medication.
Fig. 1. –The image processing pipeline used in this study. Whole brain DTI tractography, DKI tractograpy and FBI tractography were reconstructed (the axial slices demonstrate tract density images), from which whole brain connectomes were obtained. Three global network properties were analyzed (density, efficiency and clustering coefficient).
Fig. 2. –The ODFs obtained with each diffusion modality (DTI, DKI and FBI) are shown for the brain region corresponding to the blue inset in the axial slices. The same brain region is shown for all diffusion modalities. On the right side of each ODF magnification image, a mosaic demonstrating the tract density image from one representative subject is shown for each corresponding diffusion modality. The scale bar indicates the number of fibers per voxel.
Fig. 3. –The group average whole brain connectome is shown for each diffusion modality. The ROIs in the connectome adjacency matrix are ordered in rows and columns in accordance with the AAL2 brain atlas, organized into left brain hemisphere, right brain hemisphere and cerebellum. The scale bars indicate the log(number of fibers normalized by the sum of the inverse of the length of their connections).
Fig. 4. –The left side mosaics demonstrate the absolute number of fibers tracked by each diffusion modality compared with another (subtraction). The scale bars indicate the absolute number of fibers per voxel. The right sided mosaics indicate voxels in which each modality was able to resolve 1 or more fibers.
Fig. 5. -Average number of fibers tracked per voxel (x-axis) in each white matter ROI from the NatBrainLab atlas across the three different diffusion modalities. The results of the one-way ANOVA for each ROI are shown on the right side for each ROI. Stars indicate significant group-wise differences corrected for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni.
Fig. 6. –This scatter plot demonstrates the relationship between the average number of fibers tracked (x-axis) for each connectome link in relationship with the Euclidean distance in mm between the gray matter ROIs in the same link (y-axis).
Fig. 7. –Error bar graphs demonstrating whole brain network properties. For all network measures, there was a significant within-subjects effect of diffusion modality. A significant interaction was observed between diffusion modality and subject group for global clustering coefficient, with a significantly higher global clustering coefficient observed in patients with poorly controlled epilepsy compared with controls.