| Literature DB >> 35736864 |
Chencai Wang1,2, Nicholas S Cho1,2,3,4, Kathleen Van Dyk5, Sabah Islam1,6, Catalina Raymond1,2, Justin Choi7, Noriko Salamon2, Whitney B Pope2, Albert Lai7, Timothy F Cloughesy7, Phioanh L Nghiemphu7, Benjamin M Ellingson1,2,4,5,8.
Abstract
This pilot study investigates structural alterations and their relationships with cognitive function in survivors of diffuse gliomas. Twenty-four survivors of diffuse gliomas (mean age 44.5 ± 11.5), from whom high-resolution T1-weighted images, neuropsychological tests, and self-report questionnaires were obtained, were analyzed. Patients were grouped by degree of cognitive impairment, and interregional correlations of cortical thickness were computed to generate morphometric correlation networks (MCNs). The results show that the cortical thickness of the right insula (R2 = 0.3025, p = 0.0054) was negatively associated with time since the last treatment, and the cortical thickness of the left superior temporal gyrus (R2 = 0.2839, p = 0.0107) was positively associated with cognitive performance. Multiple cortical regions in the default mode, salience, and language networks were identified as predominant nodes in the MCNs of survivors of diffuse gliomas. Compared to cognitively impaired patients, cognitively non-impaired patients tended to have higher network stability in network nodes removal analysis, especially when the fraction of removed nodes (among 66 nodes in total) exceeded 55%. These findings suggest that structural networks are altered in survivors of diffuse gliomas and that their cortical structures may also be adapting to support cognitive function during survivorship.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive function; cortical thickness; diffuse gliomas; magnetic resonance imaging; morphometric correlation network; quality of life
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35736864 PMCID: PMC9229761 DOI: 10.3390/tomography8030116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tomography ISSN: 2379-1381
Figure 1Image processing and analysis pipeline. (A) T1 structural images were processed using Freesurfer, followed by quality control to ensure no cortical segmentation errors. (B) After extracting the cortical thickness of each participant, this information was combined with cognitive impairment information. From there, (C) statistical analyses, including Pearson’s correlation analysis, were performed to find associations between regional cortical thickness and functional outcomes. (D) Cortical thickness was also used to construct the morphometric correlation network (MCN). (E) In-house Matlab scripts incorporating the Graph Theory GLM tool to analyze the MCN properties, including small-world analysis, centrality, and robustness. Full presentation of the findings in (C–E) are presented in the Results section.
Figure 2Basic concept of network properties and measures used in the current study. (A) Degree centrality is defined as the number of directly connected nodes. (B) Betweenness centrality measures the node’s role in acting as a bridge between separate clusters by computing the ratio of all shortest paths in the network that contains a given node. (C) The regular network (left) has a long characteristic path length (Lp) and high clustering coefficient (Cp), while the random network (right) has a short characteristic path length (Lp) and low clustering coefficient (Cp). The small-world network (middle) has an intermediate balance between regular and random networks, with a short path length (Lp) but high clustering coefficient (Cp).
Clinical data of patients.
| ID | Age | Sex | Tumor Location | Tumor Grade | IDH1/2 Status | Rad | Chemo | Years Since Surgery | Years Since | Cognitively |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 38 | M | R FC | WHO II | Mutant | Y | Y | 6.43 | 4.75 | N |
| 2 | 38 | M | L FC | WHO III | Mutant | Y | Y | 1.95 | 1.73 | N |
| 3 | 42 | M | R PC | WHO III | Mutant | Y | Y | 6.00 | 4.42 | N |
| 4 | 39 | M | L FC | WHO III | Mutant | Y | Y | 5.07 | 3.81 | Y |
| 5 | 50 | F | L FC | WHO III | Unknown | Y | Y | 8.88 | 6.68 | N |
| 6 | 46 | F | R FC | WHO IV | Mutant | Y | Y | 7.18 | 5.98 | N |
| 7 | 31 | M | R FPC | WHO II | Mutant | Y | Y | 3.13 | 1.69 | Y |
| 8 | 32 | M | R TC | WHO III | Mutant | Y | Y | 5.00 | 3.84 | Y |
| 9 | 41 | M | R FC | WHO III | Mutant | Y | Y | 7.42 | 5.94 | N |
| 10 | 45 | M | L FC | WHO III | Mutant | Y | Y | 3.89 | 2.77 | N |
| 11 | 62 | M | R FC | WHO III | Mutant | Y | Y | 5.15 | 4.98 | Y |
| 12 | 57 | M | L FC | WHO IV | Mutant | Y | Y | 9.00 | 7.45 | Y |
| 13 | 42 | F | L OC | WHO IV | Wild Type | Y | Y | 8.26 | 6.40 | Y |
| 14 | 61 | F | R FC | WHO III | Mutant | Y | Y | 2.36 | 1.23 | Y |
| 15 | 22 | M | R FTC | WHO III | Mutant | Y | Y | 3.86 | 2.54 | N |
| 16 | 29 | M | L TC | WHO II | Mutant | N | N | 4.49 | 4.49 | N |
| 17 | 70 | M | R FC | WHO IV | Wild Type | Y | Y | 4.57 | 2.42 | Y |
| 18 | 48 | M | R PC | WHO IV | Mutant | Y | Y | 10.99 | 8.17 | N |
| 19 | 45 | F | L PC | WHO III | Unknown | Y | Y | 14.67 | 12.37 | N |
| 20 | 46 | M | L TC | WHO II | Mutant | Y | Y | 6.73 | 5.43 | Y |
| 21 | 52 | F | R FC | WHO II | Mutant | Y | Y | 2.51 | 0.70 | Y |
| 22 | 28 | F | L TC | WHO II | Mutant | Y | Y | 2.91 | 1.35 | Y |
| 23 | 38 | M | L TC | WHO II | Mutant | Y | Y | 5.83 | 0.60 | Y |
| 24 | 60 | F | L FC | WHO III | Unknown | Y | Y | 22.39 | 21.63 | N |
Y = yes; N = no; M = male; F = female; R = right; L = left; Rad = radiation; Chemo = chemotherapy. FC = frontal cortex; PC = parietal cortex; TC = temporal cortex; OC = occipital cortex; FPC = frontoparietal cortex; FTC = frontotemporal cortex. WHO = World Health Organization; IDH1/2 = isocitrate dehydrogenase −1/2.
Patients’ performance on neuropsychological assessments.
| Test | Performance |
|---|---|
| WPAI Non-Work Ability Impairment | 26% ± 29% |
| Functional Assessment for | 43.7 ± 19.6 |
SD = standard deviation.
Figure 3(A) Comparison of morphometric correlation networks (MCNs) between cognitively impaired and non-impaired patients. Colors denote values of the Z-statistic; yellow–red represents a stronger alteration in cognitively non-impaired patients; cyan–blue denotes stronger alteration in cognitively impaired patients. (B) Representative interregional correlations in cognitively non-impaired and impaired patients.
Figure 4The small-world organization of brain networks, including (A) cluster coefficient (Cp), (B) characteristic path length (Lp), (C) small-world index (Sigma), and (D) topological robustness of morphometric correlation network, were quantified in cognitively impaired (red circle) and non-impaired (blue square) patients.
Figure 5(A) The distribution of predominant nodes in both cognitively impaired and non-impaired patients. (B) Representative comparisons of cortical thickness between cognitively non-impaired and impaired patients.
Figure 6(A) Analysis of morphometric correlation networks (MCNs) of cortical thickness in patients with diffuse gliomas. Red–yellow denotes positive interregional correlation, while blue–light blue denotes negative interregional correlation. Green highlighted labels indicate nodes with high degree centrality, blue highlighted labels indicate nodes with high betweenness centrality, and red highlighted labels indicate nodes with both high degree and betweenness centrality. (B) Representative correlations between cortical thickness and cognitive function, between cortical thickness and non-work daily functioning, and cortical thickness and time since surgery in patients with diffuse gliomas.