Metabolic and electrophysiological validation of functional MRI
- T Kringsa,c,
- M Schreckenbergerb,
- V Rohdec,
- H Foltysd,
- U Spetzgerc,
- O Sabrib,
- M H T Reingesc,
- S Kemenya,
- P T Meyerb,
- W Möller-Hartmanna,
- M Korinthc,
- J M Gilsbachc,
- U Buellb,
- A Throna
- aDepartment of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of the Technical University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52057 Aachen, Germany, bDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, cDepartment of Neurosurgery, dDepartment of Neurology and Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Research-Central Nervous System
- Dr T Kringstkrings{at}izkf.rwth-aachen.de
- Received 31 May 2001
- Accepted 27 July 2001
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Although functional MRI is widely used for preoperative planning and intraoperative neuronavigation, its accuracy to depict the site of neuronal activity is not exactly known. Experience with methods that may validate fMRI data and the results obtained when coregistering fMRI with different preoperative and intraoperative mapping modalities including metabolically based 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, electrophysiologcally based transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and direct electrical cortical stimulation (DECS) are described.
METHODS Fifty patients were included. PET was performed in 30, TMS in 10, and DECS in 41 patients. After coregistration using a frameless stereotactic system, results were grouped into overlapping (<1 cm distance), neighbouring (<2 cm), or contradictory (>2 cm).
RESULTS Comparing fMRI with PET, 18 overlapping, seven neighbouring, and one contradictory result were obtained. In four patients no comparison was possible (because of motion artefacts, low signal to noise ratio, and unusual high tumour metabolism in PET). The comparison of TMS and fMRI showed seven overlapping and three neighbouring results. In three patients no DECS results could be obtained. Of the remaining 38 patients, fMRI hand motor tasks were compared with DECS results of the upper limb muscles in 36 patients, and fMRI foot motor tasks were compared with DECS results of the lower limb on 13 occasions. Of those 49 studies, overlapping results were obtained in 31 patients, and neighbouring in 14. On four occasions fMRI did not show functional information (because of motion artefacts and low signal to noise).
CONCLUSIONS All validation techniques have intrinsic limitations that restrict their spatial resolution. However, of 50 investigated patients, there was only one in whom results contradictory to fMRI were obtained. Although it is not thought that fMRI can replace the intraoperatively updated functional information (DECS), it is concluded that fMRI is an important adjunct in the preoperative assessment of patients with tumours in the vicinity of the central region.
