Optimized preoperative motor cortex mapping in brain tumors using advanced processing of transcranial magnetic stimulation data

Electric Field Modeling in Personalizing Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Interventions

The modeling of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-induced electric fields (E-fields) is a versatile technique for evaluating and refining brain targeting and dosing strategies, while also providing insights into dose-response relationships in the brain. This review outlines the methodologies employed to derive E-field estimations, covering TMS physics, modeling assumptions, and aspects of subject-specific head tissue and coil modeling. We also summarize various numerical methods for solving the E-field and their suitability for various applications. Modeling methodologies have been optimized to efficiently execute numerous TMS simulations across diverse scalp coil configurations, facilitating the identification of optimal setups or rapid cortical E-field visualization for specific brain targets. These brain targets are extrapolated from neurophysiological measurements and neuroimaging, enabling precise and individualized E-field dosing in experimental and clinical applications. This necessitates the quantification of E-field estimates using metrics that enable the comparison of brain target engagement, functional localization, and TMS intensity adjustments across subjects. The integration of E-field modeling with empirical data has the potential to uncover pivotal insights into the aspects of E-fields responsible for stimulating and modulating brain function and states, enhancing behavioral task performance, and impacting the clinical outcomes of personalized TMS interventions.

Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (nTMS) based Preoperative Planning for Brain Tumor Treatment

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive technique for analyzing the central and peripheral nervous system. TMS could be a powerful therapeutic technique for neurological disorders. TMS has also shown potential in treating various neurophysiological complications, such as depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorders, without pain and analgesics. Despite advancements in diagnosis and treatment, there has been an increase in the prevalence of brain cancer globally. For surgical planning, mapping brain tumors has proven challenging, particularly those localized in expressive regions. Preoperative brain tumor mapping may lower the possibility of postoperative morbidity in surrounding areas. A navigated TMS (nTMS) uses magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to enable precise mapping during navigated brain stimulation. The resulting magnetic impulses can be precisely applied to the target spot in the cortical region by employing nTMS. This review focuses on nTMS for preoperative planning for brain cancer. This study reviews several studies on TMS and its subtypes in treating cancer and surgical planning. nTMS gives wider and improved dimensions of preoperative planning of the motor-eloquent areas in brain tumor patients. nTMS also predicts postoperative neurological deficits, which might be helpful in counseling patients. nTMS have the potential for finding possible abnormalities in the motor cortex areas.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation mapping of the motor cortex: comparison of five estimation algorithms

Background

There are currently five different kinds of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) motor mapping algorithms available, from ordinary point-based algorithms to advanced field-based algorithms. However, there have been only a limited number of comparison studies conducted, and they have not yet examined all of the currently available algorithms. This deficiency impedes the judicious selection of algorithms for application in both clinical and basic neuroscience, and hinders the potential promotion of a potential superior algorithm. Considering the influence of algorithm complexity, further investigation is needed to examine the differences between fMRI peaks and TMS cortical hotspots that were identified previously.

Methods

Twelve healthy participants underwent TMS motor mapping and a finger-tapping task during fMRI. The motor cortex TMS mapping results were estimated by five algorithms, and fMRI activation results were obtained. For each algorithm, the prediction error was defined as the distance between the measured scalp hotspot and optimized coil position, which was determined by the maximum electric field strength in the estimated motor cortex. Additionally, the study identified the minimum number of stimuli required for stable mapping. Finally, the location difference between the TMS mapping cortical hotspot and the fMRI activation peak was analyzed.

Results

The projection yielded the lowest prediction error (5.27 ± 4.24 mm) among the point-based algorithms and the association algorithm yielded the lowest (6.66 ± 3.48 mm) among field-based estimation algorithms. The projection algorithm required fewer stimuli, possibly resulting from its suitability for the grid-based mapping data collection method. The TMS cortical hotspots from all algorithms consistently deviated from the fMRI activation peak (20.52 ± 8.46 mm for five algorithms).

Conclusion

The association algorithm might be a superior choice for clinical applications and basic neuroscience research, due to its lower prediction error and higher estimation sensitivity in the deep cortical structure, especially for the sulcus. It also has potential applicability in various other TMS domains, including language area mapping and more. Otherwise, our results provide further evidence that TMS motor mapping intrinsically differs from fMRI motor mapping.

Forearm and Hand Muscles Exhibit High Coactivation and Overlapping of Cortical Motor Representations

Most of the motor mapping procedures using navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) follow the conventional somatotopic organization of the primary motor cortex (M1) by assessing the representation of a particular target muscle, disregarding the possible coactivation of synergistic muscles. In turn, multiple reports describe a functional organization of the M1 with an overlapping among motor representations acting together to execute movements. In this context, the overlap degree among cortical representations of synergistic hand and forearm muscles remains an open question. This study aimed to evaluate the muscle coactivation and representation overlapping common to the grasping movement and its dependence on the stimulation parameters. The nTMS motor maps were obtained from one carpal muscle and two intrinsic hand muscles during rest. We quantified the overlapping motor maps in size (area and volume overlap degree) and topography (similarity and centroid Euclidean distance) parameters. We demonstrated that these muscle representations are highly overlapped and similar in shape. The overlap degrees involving the forearm muscle were significantly higher than only among the intrinsic hand muscles. Moreover, the stimulation intensity had a stronger effect on the size compared to the topography parameters. Our study contributes to a more detailed cortical motor representation towards a synergistic, functional arrangement of M1. Understanding the muscle group coactivation may provide more accurate motor maps when delineating the eloquent brain tissue during pre-surgical planning.

Safe Surgery for Glioblastoma: Recent Advances and Modern Challenges

One of the major challenges during glioblastoma surgery is balancing between maximizing extent of resection and preventing neurological deficits. Several surgical techniques and adjuncts have been developed to help identify eloquent areas both preoperatively (fMRI, nTMS, MEG, DTI) and intraoperatively (imaging (ultrasound, iMRI), electrostimulation (mapping), cerebral perfusion measurements (fUS)), and visualization (5-ALA, fluoresceine)). In this review, we give an update of the state-of-the-art management of both primary and recurrent glioblastomas. We will review the latest surgical advances, challenges, and approaches that define the onco-neurosurgical practice in a contemporary setting and give an overview of the current prospective scientific efforts.

Assessing the Capabilities of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to Aid in the Removal of Brain Tumors Affecting the Motor Cortex: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The brain tumor is frequently related to severe motor impairment and impacts the quality of life. The corticospinal tract can sometimes be affected depending on the type and size of the neoplasm, so different tools can evaluate motor function and connections. It is essential to organize surgical procedures and plan the approach. Functional motor status is mapped before, during, and after surgery. Studying corticospinal tract status can help map the functional areas, predict postoperative outcomes, and help the decision, reducing neurological deficits, aiming to preserve functional networks, using the concepts of white matters localization and fibbers connections. Nowadays, there are new techniques that provide functional information regarding the motor cortex, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), direct cortical stimulation (DCS), and navigated TMS (nTMS). These tools can be used to plan a customized surgical strategy and the role of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) is well described during intra-operative, using intraoperative neuromonitoring. MEPs can help to localize primary motor areas and delineate the cut-off point of resection in real-time, using direct stimulation. In the post-operative, the MEP has increased your function as a predictive marker of permanent or transitory neurological lesion marker.

METHODS

Systematic review performed in MEDLINE via PUBMED, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases regarding the post-operative assessment of MEP in patients with brain tumors. The search strategy included the following terms: (("Evoked Potentials, Motor"[Mesh]) AND "Neoplasms"[Mesh]) AND "Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation"[Mesh] AND "Brain Tumor"[Mesh]), the analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, the review spanned until 06/04/2021, inclusion criteria were studies presenting confirmed diagnosis of brain tumor (primary or metastatic), patients >18 y/o, using TMS, Navigated TMS, and/or Evoked Potentials as tools in preoperative planning or at the intra-operative helping the evaluation of the neurological status of the motor cortex, articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and written in English or Portuguese.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies were selected for this review, of which 14 investigated the potential of nTMS to predict the occurrence of motor deficits, while 25 of the articles investigated the capabilities of the nTMS technique in performing pre/intraoperative neuro mapping of the motor cortex.

CONCLUSION

Further studies regarding motor function assessment are needed and standardized protocols for MEPs also need to be defined.

Comparing navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation mapping and "gold standard" direct cortical stimulation mapping in neurosurgery: a systematic review

The objective of this systematic review is to create an overview of the literature on the comparison of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) as a mapping tool to the current gold standard, which is (intraoperative) direct cortical stimulation (DCS) mapping. A search in the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendations were used. Thirty-five publications were included in the review, describing a total of 552 patients. All studies concerned either mapping of motor or language function. No comparative data for nTMS and DCS for other neurological functions were found. For motor mapping, the distances between the cortical representation of the different muscle groups identified by nTMS and DCS varied between 2 and 16 mm. Regarding mapping of language function, solely an object naming task was performed in the comparative studies on nTMS and DCS. Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 10 to 100% and 13.3–98%, respectively, when nTMS language mapping was compared with DCS mapping. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) ranged from 17 to 75% and 57–100% respectively. The available evidence for nTMS as a mapping modality for motor and language function is discussed.

Invasive versus non-invasive mapping of the motor cortex

Precise and comprehensive mapping of somatotopic representations in the motor cortex is clinically essential to achieve maximum resection of brain tumours whilst preserving motor function, especially since the current gold standard, that is, intraoperative direct cortical stimulation (DCS), holds limitations linked to the intraoperative setting such as time constraints or anatomical restrictions. Non‐invasive techniques are increasingly relevant with regard to pre‐operative risk‐assessment. Here, we assessed the congruency of neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with DCS. The motor representations of the hand, the foot and the tongue regions of 36 patients with intracranial tumours were mapped pre‐operatively using nTMS and fMRI and by intraoperative DCS. Euclidean distances (ED) between hotspots/centres of gravity and (relative) overlaps of the maps were compared. We found significantly smaller EDs (11.4 ± 8.3 vs. 16.8 ± 7.0 mm) and better spatial overlaps (64 ± 38% vs. 37 ± 37%) between DCS and nTMS compared with DCS and fMRI. In contrast to DCS, fMRI and nTMS mappings were feasible for all regions and patients without complications. In summary, nTMS seems to be the more promising non‐invasive motor cortex mapping technique to approximate the gold standard DCS results.

VETA: An Open-Source Matlab-Based Toolbox for the Collection and Analysis of Electromyography Combined With Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

The combination of electromyography (EMG) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) offers a powerful non-invasive approach for investigating corticospinal excitability in both humans and animals. Acquiring and analyzing the data produced with this combination of tools requires overcoming multiple technical hurdles. Due in part to these technical hurdles, the field lacks standard routines for EMG data collection and analysis. This poses a problem for study replication and direct comparisons. Although software toolboxes already exist that perform either online EMG data visualization or offline analysis, there currently are no openly available toolboxes that flexibly perform both and also interface directly with peripheral EMG and TMS equipment. Here, we introduce Visualize EMG TMS Analyze (VETA), a MATLAB-based toolbox that supports simultaneous EMG data collection and visualization as well as automated offline processing and is specially tailored for use with motor TMS. The VETA toolbox enables the simultaneous recording of EMG, timed administration of TMS, and presentation of behavioral stimuli from a single computer. These tools also provide a streamlined analysis pipeline with interactive data visualization. Finally, VETA offers a standard EMG data format to facilitate data sharing and open science.