Accuracy analysis of fMRI and MEG activations determined by intraoperative mapping
OBJECTIVE: By looking at how the accuracy of preoperative brain mapping methods vary according to differences in the distance from the activation clusters used for the analysis, the present study aimed to elucidate how preoperative functional neuroimaging may be used in such a way that maximizes the mapping accuracy.
METHODS: The eloquent function of 19 patients with a brain tumor or cavernoma was mapped prior to resection with both functional MRI (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG). The mapping results were then validated using direct cortical stimulation mapping performed immediately after craniotomy and prior to resection. The subset of patients with equivalent MEG and fMRI tasks performed for motor (n = 14) and language (n = 12) were evaluated as both individual and combined predictions. Furthermore, the distance resulting in the maximum accuracy, as evaluated by the J statistic, was determined by plotting the sensitivities and specificities against a linearly increasing distance threshold.
RESULTS: fMRI showed a maximum mapping accuracy at 5 mm for both motor and language mapping. MEG showed a maximum mapping accuracy at 40 mm for motor and 15 mm for language mapping. At the standard 10-mm distance used in the literature, MEG showed a greater specificity than fMRI for both motor and language mapping but a lower sensitivity for motor mapping. Combining MEG and fMRI showed a maximum accuracy at 15 mm and 5 mm-MEG and fMRI distances, respectively-for motor mapping and at a 10-mm distance for both MEG and fMRI for language mapping. For motor mapping, combining MEG and fMRI at the optimal distances resulted in a greater accuracy than the maximum accuracy of the individual predictions.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the accuracy of language and motor mapping for both fMRI and MEG is heavily dependent on the distance threshold used in the analysis. Furthermore, combining MEG and fMRI showed the potential for increased motor mapping accuracy compared to when using the modalities separately.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01535430 (clinicaltrials.gov).
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2020 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2020 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:48 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Neurosurgical focus - 48(2020), 2 vom: 01. Feb., Seite E13 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Ellis, David G [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 22.01.2021 Date Revised 09.06.2021 published: Print ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01535430 Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.3171/2019.11.FOCUS19784 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM306025922 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM306025922 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225122446.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.3171/2019.11.FOCUS19784 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1020.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM306025922 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)32006951 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)2019.11.FOCUS19784 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Ellis, David G |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Accuracy analysis of fMRI and MEG activations determined by intraoperative mapping |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 22.01.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 09.06.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01535430 | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: By looking at how the accuracy of preoperative brain mapping methods vary according to differences in the distance from the activation clusters used for the analysis, the present study aimed to elucidate how preoperative functional neuroimaging may be used in such a way that maximizes the mapping accuracy | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: The eloquent function of 19 patients with a brain tumor or cavernoma was mapped prior to resection with both functional MRI (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG). The mapping results were then validated using direct cortical stimulation mapping performed immediately after craniotomy and prior to resection. The subset of patients with equivalent MEG and fMRI tasks performed for motor (n = 14) and language (n = 12) were evaluated as both individual and combined predictions. Furthermore, the distance resulting in the maximum accuracy, as evaluated by the J statistic, was determined by plotting the sensitivities and specificities against a linearly increasing distance threshold | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: fMRI showed a maximum mapping accuracy at 5 mm for both motor and language mapping. MEG showed a maximum mapping accuracy at 40 mm for motor and 15 mm for language mapping. At the standard 10-mm distance used in the literature, MEG showed a greater specificity than fMRI for both motor and language mapping but a lower sensitivity for motor mapping. Combining MEG and fMRI showed a maximum accuracy at 15 mm and 5 mm-MEG and fMRI distances, respectively-for motor mapping and at a 10-mm distance for both MEG and fMRI for language mapping. For motor mapping, combining MEG and fMRI at the optimal distances resulted in a greater accuracy than the maximum accuracy of the individual predictions | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the accuracy of language and motor mapping for both fMRI and MEG is heavily dependent on the distance threshold used in the analysis. Furthermore, combining MEG and fMRI showed the potential for increased motor mapping accuracy compared to when using the modalities separately.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01535430 (clinicaltrials.gov) | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Clinical Trial | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a BVS = blood vessel segmentation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a DCS = direct cortical stimulation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a MEG | |
| 650 | 4 | |a MEG = magnetoencephalography | |
| 650 | 4 | |a T1W = T1-weighted | |
| 650 | 4 | |a brain mapping | |
| 650 | 4 | |a brain tumor | |
| 650 | 4 | |a eloquent | |
| 650 | 4 | |a fMRI | |
| 650 | 4 | |a fMRI = functional MRI | |
| 700 | 1 | |a White, Matthew L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hayasaka, Satoru |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Warren, David E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wilson, Tony W |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Aizenberg, Michele R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Neurosurgical focus |d 1996 |g 48(2020), 2 vom: 01. Feb., Seite E13 |w (DE-627)NLM14789624X |x 1092-0684 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:48 |g year:2020 |g number:2 |g day:01 |g month:02 |g pages:E13 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2019.11.FOCUS19784 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 48 |j 2020 |e 2 |b 01 |c 02 |h E13 | ||