Leveron&Nexovas
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 1226  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (838 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusions
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed294    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded11    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 70  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 1534-1539

Correlation of Preoperative Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) with Intraoperative Cortical Stimulation in Surgeries of Eloquent Brain Lesions


1 Department of Neurosurgery and Gamma Knife Radiosurgery, P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, V. S. Marg, Mahim, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Neurology, P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, V. S. Marg, Mahim, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Imaging, P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, V. S. Marg, Mahim, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission14-May-2020
Date of Decision29-Jun-2020
Date of Acceptance10-Jul-2020
Date of Web Publication30-Aug-2022

Correspondence Address:
Basant K Misra
Department of Neurosurgery, P. D. Hinduja National Hospital, V. S. Marg, Mahim, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 016
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.355146

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Background: Direct Cortical Stimulation (DCS) represents the gold standard for mapping of eloquent brain cortex. However, DCS is an invasive and time-consuming procedure. fMRI has become a useful tool to delineate motor and sensory eloquent cortex from the areas of planned neurosurgical resection. In our study, we will be studying the reliability of preoperative imaging when compared with the intraoperative DCS.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of fMRI by comparing it with DCS.
Methods and Materials: Thirty patients with eloquent cortex lesions were admitted. Preoperative fMRI sequences were loaded into a neuro-navigational system. Intraoperative motor mapping was done by DCS. The location of all cortical stimulated points was correlated with the cortical functional structures. Based on it, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value of fMRI was calculated. Preoperative and postoperative Karnofsky score and MRC grading was then noted.
Results: Concordance between fMRI and DCS was noted in 26 cases. Overall mean sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of fMRI as compared to DCS was 95%, 92.48%, 85.56%, and 96.08%, respectively. Preoperative and Postoperative Karnofsky score stayed same in most of the cases [25/30].
Conclusions: DCS remains the gold standard for mapping eloquent cortex in-spite of its invasiveness, side effects such as seizures and cost concerns. Although fMRI cannot replace DCS, it can guide and increase the efficacy in resection, select high-risk patients for intraoperative monitoring, help in preoperative stratification of risk counseling and preservation of neurological status in eloquent brain lesions.


Keywords: Direct Cortical Stimulation (DCS), eloquent cortex, functional MRI (fMRI)
Key Message: Functional MRI should be considered as a useful preoperative surgical adjunct for mapping eloquent brain lesions.


How to cite this article:
Chawla P, Misra BK, Udani V, Desai N, Gupta S. Correlation of Preoperative Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) with Intraoperative Cortical Stimulation in Surgeries of Eloquent Brain Lesions. Neurol India 2022;70:1534-9

How to cite this URL:
Chawla P, Misra BK, Udani V, Desai N, Gupta S. Correlation of Preoperative Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) with Intraoperative Cortical Stimulation in Surgeries of Eloquent Brain Lesions. Neurol India [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Oct 7];70:1534-9. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2022/70/4/1534/355146




Motor movements and language are considered as one of the basic functions of human being that helps in their survival. Various studies show that different cortical areas are crucial for different functions and that some regions of cortex are indispensable for a defined cortical function. These areas are referred as Eloquent cortex.[1]

In pre-surgical planning, the determination of eloquent afferent and efferent tracts is important to avoid any damage to normal functions. Due to complex location of eloquent areas and the ability of functional areas to change their usual location because of the lesion, it is difficult to localize eloquent areas based only on anatomic landmarks. The classical concept of a constant localization has been proven wrong by the phenomenon called “natural plasticity,” that is, the ability of brain leading to redistribution of the functional maps within a patient.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]

Direct Cortical Stimulation [DCS] is usually used for localizing the eloquent cortex during the surgery but it has some disadvantages of invasiveness, complexity, seizures and extended operation time.[9] Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging [fMRI] is a newer imaging technique that is noninvasive and is also relatively easily available for the eloquent brain surgeries. Although diffusion tensor imaging is most helpful to illustrate structural connectivity, fMRI is used to depict functional connectivity.

In this study, we evaluate the reliability and accuracy of fMRI as compared to DCS along with the processing and reporting of the data related to the neurosurgical cases from our institute. We have also given focus on the clinical condition of the patient before and after the surgery thus trying to correlate the safety of these investigations for the patient.


 » Methods Top


The study was a prospective study of diagnostic efficacy to assess the reliability of fMRI by comparing it with DCS and to achieve maximum extent of resection with minimum disruption of patient's neurological status. The identity of the patient was not declared in any part of the project. The study was approved by the ethical committee of the hospital.

This study involved thirty patients with brain lesions within or adjacent to eloquent cortex undergoing surgery at our institute. This study was conducted prospectively for 2 years from April 2016 to March 2018. Inclusion criteria were brain lesions within or adjacent to eloquent areas and age of patient more than 10 years. Exclusion criteria were lesions in non-eloquent brain areas, children below 10 years of age and the patients incompatible for MRI.

Preoperative procedure

Informed written valid consent was taken. Preoperative neurological examinations were performed a day before the surgery to evaluate the existing neurological deficits. Karnofsky score and MRC grading of power were noted preoperatively. Preoperative fMRI and diffusion tensor imaging sequences were obtained to localize functional areas and white matter tracts. Philips Ingenia 3T digital scanner was used along with EPrime with ESys In vivo hardware and software to perform fMRI scans. Imaging data were analyzed offline, loaded into Dynasuite Neuro workstation. All the processed data was then fed into the neuronavigation system and the activated areas were co-registered. A Stealth Station S7 neuro-navigational system was used for localization during the surgeries.

Surgical procedure

Lateral position was preferred for Awake craniotomy patients and supine position for general anesthesia patients. After the craniotomy and durotomy, eloquent cortex was identified using fMRI data embedded in Neuronavigation system. SSEP was used to confirm the motor-sensory cortex junction with the phase reversal phenomenon. The contralateral upper limb, lower limb and face were visualized for any abnormality in movement. Stimulation mapping starts with identification of the motor cortex. A 4-point contact strip electrode (5 mm spacing, 60 Hz, 100 us phase duration and 10 s train duration) was positioned on the brain surface initially depending on identification of the rolandic fissure/fMRI motor map.

DCS was performed with the current amplitude between 1 and 15 mA using Nicolet/Nihon Kohden Cortical Stimulator incorporated with the ongoing electrocorticography.

The motor strip was stimulated with an initial current of 1 mA and later increased by 1 mA units until a motor response was visually identified. The amplitude of current that identified the motor cortex usually was 5 mA or less in the awake patient.

At the same time, fMRI embedded neuronavigation was used to confirm the location of eloquent cortex. The findings of fMRI and DCS monitoring regarding the recognition of eloquent cortical areas were compared. If the location of fMRI and cortical stimulation areas was same or less than 5 mm apart, these were considered concordant studies. However, if the distance between the fMRI and the DCS defined eloquent areas was more than 5 mm, these were considered discordant studies.

During the procedure, DCS findings were analyzed by the Neurologist team and fMRI findings were analyzed by the radiologist. Both the teams were blind about each other's findings.

Outcome measures

Primary outcome

The eloquent brain areas were divided into true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative. Based on it, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value of fMRI as compared to DCS was calculated.

Secondary outcome

Patient's preoperative and postoperative neurological status were compared using Karnofsky scale and MRC scale. The outcome was measured as Improvement, same or worsening of neurological status.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was done with the help of Microsoft Excel and SPSS V.23. Statistical analysis of our data was performed by employing Pearson Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact test, Mann–Whitney U test and the level of significance was set at 5%. The receiver operative characteristic (ROC), sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for each region were calculated.


 » Results Top


In this study, patients were classified into various age groups, with most (50%) being within 40-59 years group followed by 9 patients in 20–39 year group and 5 patients above 60 years age. Only 1 patient (age = 13 year) was below 20 year age. Mean age was 45 years with standard deviation of 14 years. 20 patients (66.7%) were males and 10 patients (33.3%) were females [Table 1]. Most of the patients presented with history of seizures (23/30, 77%). There was overlapping of symptoms in some patients in the form of seizures and motor weakness. Ten patients had motor weakness and four patients had speech difficulty [Table 1].
Table 1: Patient Characteristic

Click here to view


Most of the lesions were present in frontal lobe, predominantly posterior frontal in the motor cortex region [22/30]. Five lesions were present in parietal lobe, 2 lesions were in temporal lobe and 1 involved the insula. Majority of the lesions were gliomas [19/30]. There were 5 cases of meningioma, 3 cases of AVM, 2 cases of lymphoma and 1 case of metastasis [Table 1]. Local and general anesthesia was used in 21 cases and 9 cases, respectively. General anesthesia was used in cases where lesions were expected to be vascular or expected to have a long operation time like meningioma and AVM. The relationship between the type of anesthesia and concordance was calculated however the results were not significant (χ2 value. 055, P = 0.815) [Table 1].

Concordance of fMRI with DCS was noted in 26 cases (87%) in our study of 30 patients [Table 2]a. Overall mean sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of fMRI as compared to DCS was 95%, 92.48%, 85.56%, and 96.08%, respectively [Table 2]b.
Table 2:

Click here to view


Preoperative and Postoperative Karnofsky score stayed same in most of the cases [25/30] [Figure 1]. Seizures were seen during the direct cortical stimulation in 7 cases. Focal seizures were noted in 4 cases and generalized seizures in 3 cases. No case was abandoned because of seizures. Discordance between SSEP and DCS was seen in 6 cases [Table 2]a.
Figure 1: Secondary Outcome: Karnofsky Score

Click here to view



 » Discussion Top


Cortical stimulation is considered the gold standard for mapping eloquent brain cortex. DCS is a real-time mapping technique compared to virtual mapping by fMRI. DCS is an old yet trustful technique, when it comes to eloquent cortex mapping. However, DCS allows only mapping of a local region, and not of the whole brain. Moreover, DCS is invasive, labor-intensive and time-consuming with associated complications such as seizures. Therefore, merger with other non-invasive methods seems desirable.

There have been various studies in the past comparing the functional MRI with DCS with conflicting results. Atlas et al. published that they localized eloquent cortex in 71.5% cases by fMRI and they reasoned it by blaming the glioblastomas and high-grade gliomas for altering BOLD signals.[10] Fandino et al. published 82% fMRI precision in outlining the eloquent cortex.[11] 92.3% fMRI precision was noted by Spena et al. in localizing sensory-motor cortex.[12] Mueller et al., Schulder et al., Jack et al. and Roux et al. found 100% fMRI precision in recognizing the eloquent cortex.[13],[14],[15],[16] However, study populations were limited in these publications.

Lehericy et al. and Li et al. noted 92% and 100% fMRI precision in pinpointing the motor cortex.[17],[18] In one prospective study, Yousry et al. reported that the fMRI precision in recognizing the eloquent cortex was 100% with an error margin within 10 mm.[19] Similarly, Hirsch et al. published a series of 125 patients with brain lesion and of 63 healthy volunteers. There was accuracy of 100% in identifying central sulcus in healthy cases and of 98.4% in patients.[20] FitzGerald et al. published sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 53% for fMRI when the margin error was 10 mm, that changed to 92% and 0%, respectively, with a margin error of 20 mm.[21] Pouratian et al. mentioned in his study that the specificity and sensitivity for frontal lobe were 66.7% and 100%, respectively, whereas 96.2% and 69.8% for the temporal lobe, respectively.[22] Krings et al. compared fMRI and PET scan with DCS and found overlapping results.[23] In 2005, Duffau et al. published a study of low-grade glioma patients, that were divided into two groups––first group operated using DCS and the other group without DCS. The localization of eloquent areas was better in DCS group along with decrement in the percentage of severe permanent deficits to 6.5% in the DCS group as compared to 17% in the non-DCS group.[24]

The concordance of fMRI with DCS was noted in 26 cases (87%) in our study of 30 patients. Discordance was labeled whenever the distance between fMRI activation areas and DCS stimulated areas was more than 5 mm. Overall mean sensitivity of fMRI as compared to DCS was 95%. Overall mean specificity of fMRI as compared to DCS was 92.48%. Overall mean positive predictive value of fMRI as compared to DCS was 85.56%. Overall mean negative predictive value of fMRI as compared to DCS was 96.08% [Table 2]b.

Preoperative and Postoperative Karnofsky score stayed same in most of the cases [25/30]. Improvement in Karnofsky score was noted in 3 cases where motor weakness improved after surgery. The relationship between the preoperative Karnofsky score and concordance was calculated however the results were not significant (Mann Whitney U value 32.00, P = 0.14). The relationship between the postoperative Karnofsky score and concordance was calculated however the results were not significant (Mann–Whitney U value 31.00, P = 0.11). There was worsening of score in one case from 80 to 40. The patient had cortical vein injury during the surgery which can act as a confounding reason for hemiparesis and hence drop in Karnofsky score. One of the cases has been shown in the figures [Figure 2]a and [Figure 2]b.
Figure 2: (a) Images shown are MRI, fMRI and DTI of a 14-year-old female patient presented with Left lower limb weakness. Hand motor area was 1.3 cm posterolateral to the lesion. Foot area was abutting the medial margin of the lesion. Corticospinal tract was 9 mm posterior to the lesion superiorly however abutting the lesion inferiorly. (b) In the same patient, there was a discordance of 7.5 mm between the fMRI and DCS. There was cortical vein injury during the surgery and the patient developed left hemiparesis. Histopathology was suggestive of AVM. The hemiparesis is gradually improving with no residual lesions on follow up

Click here to view


During surgeries of large tumors, there is a risk of brain shift because of mass effect, CSF leak, surgical retraction, or even the extent of resection that can lead to false mapping by fMRI even after an accurate registration before the surgery. In our series, DCS was carried out just after opening of the dura mater to avoid effects of surgical retraction, CSF leak, or extent of resection.

In spite of taking all possible precautions, 4 cases had discordance between fMRI and DCS. One of the possible reasons can be deformation induced by craniotomy, which reduces image registration and thus decreases the accuracy of fMRI. Also, the paradigms applied for fMRI and DCS cannot be the same because of different setups. Activation areas of fMRI are based on the statistical thresholds that were decided by the radiologists and directly influence the localization of eloquent cortex by fMRI. In our case series, only 1 radiologist was involved to avoid inter-observer error. A low threshold can increase the number of non-essential areas and the size of the critical areas, whereas a high threshold will result in critical areas not reaching statistical significance.

Additionally, mapping principles of fMRI and DCS are basically different. fMRI shows all the brain areas that are involved during the execution of a voluntary task; however, DCS only localizes the area that is essential for the task, by disturbing that particular function against the patient's will. The poverty in complete concordance raises the question about the precision of specificity, sensitivity, and predictive values of fMRI when compared with the DCS. DCS is and will remain the gold standard for mapping eloquent cortex. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the importance of fMRI as an adjuvant to DCS during planning of eloquent cortex surgeries. Although fMRI cannot replace DCS, it can guide and increase the efficacy in resection, select high-risk patients for intraoperative monitoring, help in preoperative stratification of risk counseling and preservation of neurological status in eloquent brain lesions.


 » Conclusions Top


Concordance of fMRI with DCS was noted in 26 cases (87%) in our study of 30 patients. Overall mean sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of fMRI as compared to DCS was 95%, 92.48%, 85.56%, and 96.08%, respectively. The other advantages of fMRI were non-invasive assessment of eloquent brain regions (both surface and deep) with ease, assessing surgical risk, guiding surgical approaches, and exposure for the resection of eloquent cortical lesions. However, motion artifact, observer dependence, infiltrative tumors and venous effects can lead to inaccuracy of fMRI, and hence DCS, the real-time mapping technique still remains the Gold standard despite its invasiveness, risk of seizures (21 percent in our series), and labor-intensive procedure. Moreover, fMRI can be used to select high-risk patients that would require DCS thus reducing the final number of patients requiring DCS.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 » References Top

1.
Rosenow F, Lüders HO. Presurgical evaluation of epilepsy. Brain 2001;124:1683-700.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Tzourio-Mazoyer N, Josse G, Crivello F, B Mazoyer. Interindividual variability in the hemispheric organization for speech. Neuroimage 2004;21:422-35.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Xiong J, Rao S, Jerabek P, Zamarripa F, Woldorff M, Lancaster J, et al. Intersubject variability in cortical activations during a complex language task. Neuroimage 2000;12:326-39.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ungerleider LG, Doyon J, Karni A. Imaging brain plasticity during motor skill learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2002;78:553-64.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Hlustik P, Solodkin A, Noll DC, Small SL. Cortical plasticity during threeweek motor skill learning. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;21:180-91.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Ojemann GA. Different approaches to resective epilepsy surgery: Standard and tailored. Epilepsy Res Suppl 1992;5:169-74.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Rivet DJ, O'Brien DF, Park TS, Ojemann JG. Distance of the motor cortex from the coronal suture as a function of age. Pediatr Neurosurg 2004;40:215-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Duffau H, Capelle L, Denvil D, Sichez N, Gatignol P, Lopes M, et al. Functional recovery after surgical resection of low-grade gliomas in eloquent brain: Hypothesis of brain compensation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:901-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kim KK, Privitera MD, Szaflarski JP. Lessons learned from a comparison of language localization using fMRI and electrocortical mapping: Case studies of neocortical epilepsy patients. Epileptic Disord 2011;13:368-74.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Atlas SW, Howard RS 2nd, Maldjian J, Alsop D, Detre JA, Listerud J, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of regional brain activity in patients with intracerebral gliomas: Findings and implications for clinical management. Neurosurgery 1996;38:329-38.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Fandino J, Kollias SS, Wieser HG, Valavanis A, Yonekawa Y. Intraoperative validation of functional magnetic resonance imaging and cortical reorganization patterns in patients with brain tumors involving the primary motor cortex. J Neurosurg 1999;91:238-50.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Spena G, Nava A, Cassini F, Pepoli A, Bruno M, D'Agata F. Preoperative and intraoperative brain mapping for the resection of eloquent-area tumors. A prospective analysis of methodology, correlation, and usefulness based on clinical outcomes. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010;152:1835-45.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Mueller WM, Yetkin FZ, Hammeke TA, Morris GL 3rd, Swanson SJ, Reichert K, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging mapping of the motor cortex in patients with cerebral tumors. Neurosurgery 1996;39:515-20; discussion 520-1.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Schulder M, Maldjian JA, Liu WC, Holodny AI, Kalnin AT, Mun IK, et al. Functional image-guided surgery of intracranial tumors located in or near the sensorimotor cortex. J Neurosurg 1998;89:412-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Jack CR Jr, Thompson RM, Butts RK, Sharbrough FW, Kelly PJ, Hanson DP, et al. Sensory motor cortex: Correlation of presurgical mapping with functional MR imaging and invasive cortical mapping. Radiology 1994;190:85-92.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Roux FE, Boulanouar K, Ranjeva JP, Tremoulet M, Henry P, Manelfe C, et al. Usefulness of motor functional MRI correlated to cortical mapping in Rolandic low-grade astrocytomas. Acta Neurochir 1999;141:71-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Lehéricy S, Duffau H, Cornu P, Capelle L, Pidoux B, Carpentier A, et al. Correspondence between functional magnetic resonance imaging somatotopy and individual brain anatomy of the central region: Comparison with intraoperative stimulation in patients with brain tumors. J Neurosurg 2000;92:589-98.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Li SW, Wang JF, Jiang T, Li SW, Zhang WB, Li ZX, et al. Preoperative 3T high field blood oxygen level dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging for glioma involving sensory cortical areas. Chin Med J 2010;123:1006-10.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Yousry TA, Schmid UD, Jassoy AG, Schmidt D, Eisner WE, Reulen HJ, et al. Topography of the cortical motor hand area: Prospective study with functional MR imaging and direct motor mapping at surgery. Radiology 1995;195:23-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Hirsch J, Ruge MI, Kim KH, Correa DD, Victor JD, Relkin NR, et al. An integrated functional magnetic resonance imaging procedure for preoperative mapping of cortical areas associated with tactile, motor, language, and visual functions. Neurosurgery 2000;47:711-22.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
FitzGerald DB, Cosgrove GR, Ronner S, Jiang H, Buchbinder BR, Belliveau JW, et al. Location of language in the cortex: A comparison between functional MR imaging and electrocortical stimulation. Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18:1529-39.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Pouratian N, Bookheimer SY, Rex DE, Martin NA, Toga AW. Utility of preoperative functional magnetic resonance imaging for identifying language cortices in patients with vascular malformations. Neurosurg Focus 2002;13:e4.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Krings T, Schreckenberger M, Rohde V, Spetzger U, Sabri O, Reinges MH, et al. Functional MRI and 18F FDG-positron emission tomography for presurgical planning: Comparison with electrical cortical stimulation. Acta Neurochir 2002 144:889-99.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Duffau H, Moritz-Gasser S, Mandonnet E. A re-examination of neural basis of language processing: Proposal of a dynamic hodotopical model from data provided by brain stimulation mapping during picture naming. Brain Lang 2014;131:1-10.  Back to cited text no. 24
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow