| Literature DB >> 35571986 |
Christian Dorfer1, Thomas Pletschko2, Rene Seiger3, Monika Chocholous2, Gregor Kasprian4, Jacqueline Krajnik1,4, Karl Roessler1, Kathrin Kollndorfer4, Veronika Schöpf4, Ulrike Leiss2, Irene Slavc2, Daniela Prayer4, Rupert Lanzenberger3, Thomas Czech1.
Abstract
Background: Childhood cerebellar pilocytic astrocytomas harbor excellent overall survival rates after surgical resection, but the patients may exhibit specific cognitive and behavioral problems. Functional MRI has catalyzed insights into brain functional systems and has already been linked with the neuropsychological performance. We aimed to exploit the question of whether resting-state functional MRI can be used as a biomarker for the cognitive outcome assessment of these patients.Entities:
Keywords: cerebellar pilocytic astrocytoma; cognitive outcome; precuneus; resting state functional MRI
Year: 2022 PMID: 35571986 PMCID: PMC9092637 DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdac050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neurooncol Adv ISSN: 2632-2498
Patients’ Characteristics
| ID | Gender | Age at Surgery (years) | Age at Exam (years) | Lesion Site | Tumor Size (cm) | EVD Preop | VP Shunt | Postop Cerebellar Mutism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 3.7 | 24.2 | Vermis | 4 | No | No | No |
| 2 | F | 3.7 | 23.9 | R hemisphere | 3.5 | No | No | No |
| 3 | M | 9.4 | 23.4 | R hemisphere | 4 | No | No | No |
| 4 | M | 7.1 | 21.3 | Vermis | 3 | No | No | No |
| 5 | M | 13.7 | 31.3 | R hemisphere | 3.5 | No | No | No |
| 6 | F | 4..3 | 16.1 | L hemisphere | 5 | No | No | No |
| 7 | M | 7.2 | 14.9 | R hemisphere | 3.5 | No | No | No |
| 8 | F | 3.4 | 18.9 | Vermis | 3.5 | No | No | No |
| 9 | M | 5.4 | 21.7 | R hemisphere | 5 | No | No | No |
| 10 | M | 5.0 | 22.9 | Vermis | 4 | Yes | No | No |
| 11 | F | 9.9 | 30.0 | L hemisphere | 4.5 | No | No | No |
| 12 | F | 9.6 | 21.3 | R hemisphere | 1 | No | No | No |
| 13 | F | 12.1 | 16.2 | L hemisphere | 3 | No | No | No |
Abbreviations: EVD, external ventricular drain; VP, ventriculoperitoneal.
Group Differences in Neuropsychological Functions
| Neuropsychological Functions | Patients ( | Controls ( |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall cognitive functioning (%ile) | |||||
| WIE IQ | 48.62 (29.14) | 85.25 (15.45) | 176.00 ( | .001** | |
| Information processing speed (%ile) | |||||
| TMT (numbers) | 51.23 (35.29) | 75.88 (13.58) | 142.00 ( | .092 | |
| TMT (letters) | 49.54 (30.66) | 75.69 (15.35) | 155.00 ( | .025* | |
| WIE visuom. proc. | 38.92 (35.29) | 70.00 (24.20) | 154.50 (. | .025* | |
| WIE info. processing | 40.75 (35.28) | 77.38 (25.08) | 147.00 (. | .017* | |
| Cognitive flexibility (%ile) | |||||
| TMT (numbers/letters) | 53.00 (29.82) | 72.40 (17.08) | 134.00 (. | .098 | |
| Attentional performance | |||||
| TAP alertness (signal) | |||||
|
| 238.15 (47.76) | 223.38 (36.90) | 0.838 ( | .370 | |
|
| 35.62 (20.22) | 27.81 (10.30) | 75.50 | .215 | |
| TAP Alertness (no signal) | |||||
|
| 230.38 (32.61) | 227.13 (35.55) | 0.066 ( | .799 | |
|
| 32.77 (11.75) | 26.19 (10.53) | 72.50 | .170 | |
| TAP working memory | |||||
|
| 624.08 (146.49) | 566.06 (145.85) | 1.129 ( | .298 | |
|
| 2.08 | 0.81 | 65.50 | .092 | |
|
| 12.92 (2.10) | 14.19 | 142.50 (. | .092 | |
| TAP incompatibility | |||||
|
| 420.31 (85.93) | 380.56 (46.55) | 73.00 | .184 | |
|
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 104.00 (. | 1.000 | |
|
| 57.62 (3.64) | 58.63 | 93.50 | .650 | |
| TAP divided attention (cross-modal) | |||||
|
| 530.77 (66.85) | 551.13 (75.77) | 0.590 | .449 | |
|
| 0.69 | 0.69 | 113.00 (. | .714 | |
|
| 15.31 (1.03) | 15.31 | 95.00 | .714 | |
|
| 783.92 (73.20) | 695.94 (70.96) | 10.651 ( | .003** | |
|
| 1.00 | 0.63 | 95.00 | .714 | |
|
| 16.00 (1.23) | 16.38 | 113.00 (. | .714 |
Abbreviations: M, mean; SD, standard deviation; t, independent samples t-test (Welch correction); d, effect size (Cohen’s d); U, Mann-Whitney U-test; r, effect size; WIE, Wechsler Intelligence Scales; IQ, intelligence quotient; TMT, Trail Making Test; TAP, test battery for attentional performance (Median = reaction time in seconds, Variability = SD of reaction time in seconds, Completeness = number of omissions, Accuracy = number of correct answers); %ile, computed percentile based on the reference norm population for each subject (expected average = 50, average range = 16-84); visuom.proc., visuomotor processing.
*P < .05, **P < .01 (2-tailed).
Figure 1.Global functional connectivity. The precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex area shows increased functional connectivity in patients compared with controls.