Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28050345›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2017

Functional MRI vs. navigated TMS to optimize M1 seed volume delineation for DTI tractography. A prospective study in patients with brain tumours adjacent to the corticospinal tract.

Carolin Weiss Lucas, Irada Tursunova, Volker Neuschmelting, Charlotte Nettekoven, Ana-Maria Oros-Peusquens, Gabriele Stoffels, Andrea Maria Faymonville, Shah N Jon, Karl Josef Langen, Hannah Lockau and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Carolin Weiss LucasUniversity of Cologne, Center of Neurosurgery, 50924 Cologne, Germany.
Irada TursunovaUniversity of Cologne, Center of Neurosurgery, 50924 Cologne, Germany.
Volker NeuschmeltingUniversity of Cologne, Center of Neurosurgery, 50924 Cologne, Germany.
Charlotte NettekovenUniversity of Cologne, Center of Neurosurgery, 50924 Cologne, Germany.
Ana-Maria Oros-PeusquensInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Research Centre Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany.
Gabriele StoffelsInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Research Centre Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany.
Andrea Maria FaymonvilleUniversity of Cologne, Center of Neurosurgery, 50924 Cologne, Germany.
Shah N JonInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Research Centre Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany; RWTH Aachen University, University Clinic Aachen, Departments of Nuclear Medicine and Neurology, 52074 Aachen, Germany; Department of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Monash Institute of Medical Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Monash Biomedical Imaging, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Karl Josef LangenInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Research Centre Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany; RWTH Aachen University, University Clinic Aachen, Departments of Nuclear Medicine and Neurology, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Hannah LockauUniversity of Cologne, Department of Radiology, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Roland GoldbrunnerUniversity of Cologne, Center of Neurosurgery, 50924 Cologne, Germany.
Christian GrefkesInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Research Centre Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany; University of Cologne, Department of Neurology, 50924 Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDTI-based tractography is an increasingly important tool for planning brain surgery in patients suffering from brain tumours. However, there is an ongoing debate which tracking approaches yield the most valid results. Especially the use of functional localizer data such as navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) seem to improve fibre tracking data in conditions where anatomical landmarks are less informative due to tumour-induced distortions of the gyral anatomy. We here compared which of the two localizer techniques yields more plausible results with respect to mapping different functional portions of the corticospinal tract (CST) in brain tumour patients.

methodsThe CSTs of 18 patients with intracranial tumours in the vicinity of the primary motor area (M1) were investigated by means of deterministic DTI. The core zone of the tumour-adjacent hand, foot and/or tongue M1 representation served as cortical regions of interest (ROIs). M1 core zones were defined by both the nTMS hot-spots and the fMRI local activation maxima. In addition, for all patients, a subcortical ROI at the level of the inferior anterior pons was implemented into the tracking algorithm in order to improve the anatomical specificity of CST reconstructions. As intra-individual control, we additionally tracked the CST of the hand motor region of the unaffected, i.e., non-lesional hemisphere, again comparing fMRI and nTMS M1 seeds. The plausibility of the fMRI-ROI- vs. nTMS-ROI-based fibre trajectories was assessed by a-priori defined anatomical criteria. Moreover, the anatomical relationship of different fibre courses was compared regarding their distribution in the anterior-posterior direction as well as their location within the posterior limb of the internal capsule (PLIC).

resultsOverall, higher plausibility rates were observed for the use of nTMS- as compared to fMRI-defined cortical ROIs (

conclusionNTMS achieved better tracking results than fMRI in conditions when the cortical tract origin (M1) was located in close vicinity to a brain tumour, probably influencing neurovascular coupling. Hence, especially in situations with altered BOLD signal physiology, nTMS seems to be the method of choice in order to identify seed regions for CST mapping in patients.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBrain MappingBrain NeoplasmsDiffusion Tensor ImagingFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMotor CortexPyramidal TractsTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAPB, Abductor pollicis brevis muscleBOLD, Blood-oxygenation-level dependentCSTCST, Corticospinal tractDCS, Direct cortical stimulationDeterministicdMRI, Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (i.e., diffusion-weighted imaging, DWI)DTI, Diffusion tensor imagingEF, Electric fieldEMG, ElectromyographyFACT, Fibre assignment by continuous trackingFA(T), Fractional anisotropy (threshold)fMRIfMRI, Functional magnetic resonance imagingFOV, Field-of-viewFWE, Family-wise errorKPS, Karnofsky performance scaleLT, Lateral tongue muscle, anterior thirdM1, Primary motor cortexMEP, Motor-evoked potentialMFL, Minimal fibre lengthMPRAGE, Magnetization prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo (T1 MR seq.)nTMSnTMS, Neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulationOR, Odd's ratioPLIC, Posterior limb of the internal capsulePM, Plantar musclepxsq, p-value according to Pearson's chi-square testPyramidal tractRMT, Resting motor thresholdROIROI, Region-of-interestSD, Standard deviationSE, Standard errorSomatotopicX-sq, X-squared (Pearson's chi-square test)

Identifiers

PMID28050345
PMCPMC5192048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.