Review Article
Open Access
Issue
Published:
17 January 2020
Open Access
Issue
Published:
17 January 2020
The impact of neuroimaging advancement on neurocognitive evaluation in pediatric brain tumor survivors: A review
Yuqi Zhang1,3(
)
)
Cite this article:
Fan J, Milosevic R, Li J, et al.
The impact of neuroimaging advancement on neurocognitive evaluation in pediatric brain tumor survivors: A review.
Brain Science Advances,
2019, 5(2): 117-127.
https://doi.org/10.26599/BSA.2019.9050008
Download citation
636
Views
41
Downloads
Citations
0
Crossref
N/A
WoS
N/A
Scopus
N/A
CSCD
Pediatric brain tumors are a type of tumors that are commonly present in children and young adults. With the improvement of treatment, the quality of life, especially the cognitive functioning, is gaining increasingly more attention. Apart from cognitive evaluations, neuroimaging studies begin to play an important part in neurocognitive functioning investigation. In this way, the brain tissue changes caused by tumor variables (including tumor location and tumor size) and treatment variables (including surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy) can be detected by neuroimaging. Recent advancement of neuroimaging techniques, such as functional- MRI (fMRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), made great contributions to understanding cognitive dysfunction and quantifying the effects of tumor variables and treatment variables. In recent years, laminar-fMRI provided a potentially valuable tool for examining the exact origins of neural activity and cognitive function. On the other hand, molecular fMRI might guide diagnosis and treatment of brain disease in the future by using new biomarkers, and DTI can detect white matter changes and obtain some anatomically specific information.
menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article
The impact of neuroimaging advancement on neurocognitive evaluation in pediatric brain tumor survivors: A review
Yuqi Zhang1,3(
)
)
Abstract
Pediatric brain tumors are a type of tumors that are commonly present in children and young adults. With the improvement of treatment, the quality of life, especially the cognitive functioning, is gaining increasingly more attention. Apart from cognitive evaluations, neuroimaging studies begin to play an important part in neurocognitive functioning investigation. In this way, the brain tissue changes caused by tumor variables (including tumor location and tumor size) and treatment variables (including surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy) can be detected by neuroimaging. Recent advancement of neuroimaging techniques, such as functional- MRI (fMRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), made great contributions to understanding cognitive dysfunction and quantifying the effects of tumor variables and treatment variables. In recent years, laminar-fMRI provided a potentially valuable tool for examining the exact origins of neural activity and cognitive function. On the other hand, molecular fMRI might guide diagnosis and treatment of brain disease in the future by using new biomarkers, and DTI can detect white matter changes and obtain some anatomically specific information.
Keywords:
neuroimaging, cognitive function, pediatric brain tumors, fMRI, DTI
References(74)
[1]
ME Brière, JG Scott, RY McNall-Knapp, et al. Cognitive outcome in pediatric brain tumor survivors: delayed attention deficit at long-term follow-up. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008, 50(2): 337-340.
[2]
PC Nathan, SK Patel, K Dilley, et al. Guidelines for identification of, advocacy for, and intervention in neurocognitive problems in survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007, 161(8): 798-806.
[3]
RD Annett, SK Patel, S Phipps. Monitoring and assessment of neuropsychological outcomes as a standard of care in pediatric oncology. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015, 62(Suppl 5): S460-S513.
[4]
JC Thigpen, M Pearson, KE Robinson, et al. Presurgical assessment of cognitive function in pediatric brain tumor patients: feasibility and initial findings. Neurooncol Pract. 2016, 3(4): 261-267.
[5]
Y Park, ES Yu, B Ha, et al. Neurocognitive and psychological functioning of children with an intracranial germ cell tumor. Cancer Res Treat. 2017, 49(4): 960-969.
[6]
SY Liang, TF Yang, YW Chen, et al. Neuropsychological functions and quality of life in survived patients with intracranial germ cell tumors after treatment. Neuro-oncology. 2013, 15(11): 1543-1551.
[7]
S Helie, S Chakravarthy, AA Moustafa. Exploring the cognitive and motor functions of the basal ganglia: an integrative review of computational cognitive neuroscience models. Front Comput Neurosci. 2013, 7: 174.
[8]
G Leisman, O Braun-Benjamin, R Melillo. Cognitive- motor interactions of the basal ganglia in development. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014, 8: 16.
[9]
M Dennis, BJ Spiegler, MC Obonsawin, et al. Brain tumors in children and adolescents—III. Effects of radiation and hormone status on intelligence and on working, associative and serial-order memory. Neuropsychologia. 1992, 30(3): 257-275.
[10]
S Sagar, J Rick, A Chandra, et al. Functional brain mapping: overview of techniques and their application to neurosurgery. Neurosurg Rev. 2019, 42(3): 639-647.
[11]
CL Marvel, OP Morgan, SI Kronemer. How the motor system integrates with working memory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019, 102: 184-194.
[12]
T Moberget, S Andersson, T Lundar, et al. Long-term supratentorial brain structure and cognitive function following cerebellar tumour resections in childhood. Neuropsychologia. 2015, 69: 218-231.
[13]
L Janzen, D Mabbott, SL Guger. Neuropsychological outcomes in pediatric brain tumor survivors. In Pediatric Neuro-oncology. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2015.
[14]
I Tonning Olsson, S Perrin, J Lundgren, et al. Long- term cognitive sequelae after pediatric brain tumor related to medical risk factors, age, and sex. Pediatr Neurol. 2014, 51(4): 515-521.
[15]
N Law, E Bouffet, S Laughlin, et al. Cerebello-thalamo- cerebral connections in pediatric brain tumor patients: impact on working memory. Neuroimage. 2011, 56(4): 2238-2248.
[16]
DW Beebe, MD Ris, FD Armstrong, et al. Cognitive and adaptive outcome in low-grade pediatric cerebellar astrocytomas: evidence of diminished cognitive and adaptive functioning in National Collaborative Research Studies (CCG 9891/POG 9130). J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23(22): 5198-5204.
[17]
R Jalali, I Mallick, D Dutta, et al. Factors influencing neurocognitive outcomes in young patients with benign and low-grade brain tumors treated with stereotactic conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010, 77(4): 974-979.
[18]
MD Ris, DW Beebe, FD Armstrong, et al. Cognitive and adaptive outcome in extracerebellar low-grade brain tumors in children: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26(29): 4765-4770.
[19]
K Margelisch, M Studer, BC Ritter, et al. Cognitive dysfunction in children with brain tumors at diagnosis. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015, 62(10): 1805-1812.
[20]
ME Brière, JG Scott, RY McNall-Knapp, et al. Cognitive outcome in pediatric brain tumor survivors: delayed attention deficit at long-term follow-up. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008, 50(2): 337-340.
[21]
CS Scherling, A Smith. Opening up the window into "chemobrain" : a neuroimaging review. Sensors (Basel). 2013, 13(3): 3169-3203.
[22]
PL Stavinoha, MA Askins, SK Powell, et al. Neurocognitive and psychosocial outcomes in pediatric brain tumor survivors. Bioengineering (Basel). 2018, 5(3): E73.
[23]
OA Taylor, MJ Hockenberry, K McCarthy, et al. Evaluation of biomarkers of oxidative stress and apoptosis in patients with severe methotrexate neurotoxicity: A case series. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2015, 32(5): 320-325.
[24]
S Rutkowski, U Bode, F Deinlein, et al. Treatment of early childhood medulloblastoma by postoperative chemotherapy alone. N Engl J Med. 2005, 352(10): 978-986.
[25]
CC Verstappen, JJ Heimans, K Hoekman, et al. Neurotoxic complications of chemotherapy in patients with cancer: clinical signs and optimal management. Drugs. 2003, 63(15): 1549-1563.
[26]
R Warrier, A Chauhan, M Davluri, et al. Cisplatin and cranial irradiation-related hearing loss in children. Ochsner J. 2012, 12(3): 191-196.
[27]
S Deprez, T Billiet, S Sunaert, et al. Diffusion tensor MRI of chemotherapy-induced cognitive impairment in non-CNS cancer patients: a review. Brain Imaging Behav. 2013, 7(4): 409-435.
[28]
E Niedermeyer, F Lopes Da Silva. Electroencephalography: Basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005.
[29]
MA de Ruiter, R van Mourik, AY Schouten-van Meeteren, et al. Neurocognitive consequences of a paediatric brain tumour and its treatment: a meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013, 55(5): 408-417.
[30]
BJ Spiegler, E Bouffet, ML Greenberg, et al. Change in neurocognitive functioning after treatment with cranial radiation in childhood. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22(4): 706-713.
[31]
M Fouladi, M Chintagumpala, FH Laningham, et al. White matter lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging after radiotherapy and high-dose chemotherapy in children with medulloblastoma or primitive neuroectodermal tumor. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22(22): 4551-4560.
[32]
LM Jacola, JM Ashford, WE Reddick, et al. The relationship between working memory and cerebral white matter volume in survivors of childhood brain tumors treated with conformal radiation therapy. J Neurooncol. 2014, 119(1): 197-205.
[33]
WE Reddick, JO Glass, SL Palmer, et al. Atypical white matter volume development in children following craniospinal irradiation. Neuro-oncology. 2005, 7(1): 12-19.
[34]
ML Monje, H Vogel, M Masek, et al. Impaired human hippocampal neurogenesis after treatment for central nervous system malignancies. Ann Neurol. 2007, 62(5): 515-520.
[35]
BJ Nagel, DC Delis, SL Palmer, et al. Early patterns of verbal memory impairment in children treated for medulloblastoma. Neuropsychology. 2006, 20(1): 105-112.
[36]
DD Correa. Neurocognitive function in brain tumors. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2010, 10(3): 232-239.
[37]
RL Buckner. The cerebellum and cognitive function: 25 years of insight from anatomy and neuroimaging. Neuron. 2013, 80(3): 807-815.
[38]
E Mandonnet, PA Winkler, H Duffau. Direct electrical stimulation as an input gate into brain functional networks: principles, advantages and limitations. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2010, 152(2): 185-193.
[39]
H Lv, Z Wang, E Tong, et al. Resting-state functional MRI: everything that nonexperts have always wanted to know. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018, 39(8): 1390-1399.
[40]
MS Chow, SL Wu, SE Webb, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging and the brain: A brief review. World J Radiol. 2017, 9(1): 5-9.
[41]
G Deshpande, D Rangaprakash, L Oeding, et al. A new generation of brain-computer interfaces driven by discovery of latent EEG-fMRI linkages using tensor decomposition. Front Neurosci. 2017, 11: 246.
[43]
C Zich, S Debener, C Kranczioch, et al. Real-time EEG feedback during simultaneous EEG-fMRI identifies the cortical signature of motor imagery. Neuroimage. 2015, 114: 438-447.
[44]
B Sorger, J Reithler, B Dahmen, et al. A real-time fMRI-based spelling device immediately enabling robust motor-independent communication. Curr Biol. 2012, 22(14): 1333-1338.
[45]
MS Korgaonkar, K Ram, LM Williams, et al. Establishing the resting state default mode network derived from functional magnetic resonance imaging tasks as an endophenotype: A twins study. Hum Brain Mapp. 2014, 35(8): 3893-3902.
[46]
AM Bastos, WM Usrey, RA Adams, et al. Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding. Neuron. 2012, 76(4): 695-711.
[47]
DJ Heeger. Theory of cortical function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017, 114(8): 1773-1782.
[48]
PR Roelfsema, FP de Lange. Early visual cortex as a multiscale cognitive blackboard. Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2016, 2: 131-151
[49]
SO Dumoulin, A Fracasso, W van der Zwaag, et al. Ultra-high field MRI: Advancing systems neuroscience towards mesoscopic human brain function. Neuroimage. 2018, 168: 345-357.
[50]
PJ Koopmans, M Barth, DG Norris. Layer-specific BOLD activation in human V1. Hum Brain Mapp. 2010, 31(9): 1297-1304.
[51]
PJ Koopmans, M Barth, S Orzada, et al. Multi-echo fMRI of the cortical laminae in humans at 7 T. Neuroimage. 2011, 56(3): 1276-1285.
[52]
SJD Lawrence, E Formisano, L Muckli, et al. Laminar fMRI: applications for cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage. 2019, 197: 785-791.
[53]
D Ress, GH Glover, JJ Liu, et al. Laminar profiles of functional activity in the human brain. Neuroimage. 2007, 34(1): 74-84.
[54]
MW Self, T van Kerkoerle, H Supèr, et al. Distinct roles of the cortical layers of area V1 in figure-ground segregation. Curr Biol. 2013, 23(21): 2121-2129.
[55]
F De Martino, M Moerel, K Ugurbil, et al. Frequency preference and attention effects across cortical depths in the human primary auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015, 112(52): 16036-16041.
[56]
P Kok, LJ Bains, T van Mourik, et al. Selective activation of the deep layers of the human primary visual cortex by top-down feedback. Curr Biol. 2016, 26(3): 371-376.
[57]
L Muckli, F De Martino, L Vizioli, et al. Contextual feedback to superficial layers of V1. Curr Biol. 2015, 25(20): 2690-2695.
[58]
R Scheeringa, PJ Koopmans, T van Mourik, et al. The relationship between oscillatory EEG activity and the laminar-specific BOLD signal. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016, 113(24): 6761-6766.
[59]
K Friston. A theory of cortical responses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, B, Biol Sci. 2005, 360(1456): 815-836.
[60]
BB Bartelle, A Barandov, A Jasanoff. Molecular fMRI. J Neurosci. 2016, 36(15): 4139-4148.
[61]
MZ Lin, MJ Schnitzer. Genetically encoded indicators of neuronal activity. Nat Neurosci. 2016, 19(9): 1142-1153.
[62]
S Ghosh, P Harvey, JC Simon, et al. Probing the brain with molecular fMRI. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2018, 50: 201-210.
[63]
FJ Alfaro, A Gavrieli, P Saade-Lemus, et al. White matter microstructure and cognitive decline in metabolic syndrome: a review of diffusion tensor imaging. Metab Clin Exp. 2018, 78: 52-68.
[64]
A Turken, S Whitfield-Gabrieli, R Bammer, et al. Cognitive processing speed and the structure of white matter pathways: convergent evidence from normal variation and lesion studies. Neuroimage. 2008, 42(2): 1032-1044.
[65]
E Sasson, GM Doniger, O Pasternak, et al. Structural correlates of memory performance with diffusion tensor imaging. Neuroimage. 2010, 50(3): 1231-1242.
[66]
FC Rueda Lopes, T Doring, C Martins, et al. The role of demyelination in neuromyelitis optica damage: diffusion-tensor MR imaging study. Radiology. 2012, 263(1): 235-242.
[67]
JY Zhang, MV Jones, MT McMahon, et al. In vivo and ex vivo diffusion tensor imaging of cuprizone- induced demyelination in the mouse corpus callosum. Magn Reson Med. 2012, 67(3): 750-759.
[68]
JM Ling, A Peña, RA Yeo, et al. Biomarkers of increased diffusion anisotropy in semi-acute mild traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal perspective. Brain. 2012, 135(Pt 4): 1281-1292.
[69]
PW Wright, JM Heaps, JS Shimony, et al. The effects of HIV and combination antiretroviral therapy on white matter integrity. AIDS. 2012, 26(12): 1501-1508.
[70]
MD Budde, L Janes, E Gold, et al. The contribution of gliosis to diffusion tensor anisotropy and tractography following traumatic brain injury: validation in the rat using Fourier analysis of stained tissue sections. Brain. 2011, 134(Pt 8): 2248-2260.
[71]
GA Lodygensky, T West, M Stump, et al. In vivo MRI analysis of an inflammatory injury in the developing brain. Brain Behav Immun. 2010, 24(5): 759-767.
[72]
Y van de Looij, GA Lodygensky, J Dean, et al. High- field diffusion tensor imaging characterization of cerebral white matter injury in lipopolysaccharide- exposed fetal sheep. Pediatr Res. 2012, 72(3): 285-292.
[73]
M Takahashi, DB Hackney, GX Zhang, et al. Magnetic resonance microimaging of intraaxonal water diffusion in live excised lamprey spinal cord. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002, 99(25): 16192-16196.
[74]
M Takahashi, J Ono, K Harada, et al. Diffusional anisotropy in cranial nerves with maturation: quantitative evaluation with diffusion MR imaging in rats. Radiology. 2000, 216(3): 881-885.
[75]
C Beaulieu, PS Allen. Determinants of anisotropic water diffusion in nerves. Magn Reson Med. 1994, 31(4): 394-400.
Publication history
Copyright
Rights and permissions
Publication history
Received: 08 March 2019
Revised: 16 April 2019
Accepted: 22 April 2019
Published:
17 January 2020
Issue date: June 2019
Copyright
© The authors 2019
Rights and permissions
This article is published with open access at journals.sagepub.com/home/BSA
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY- NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
FEEDBACK 
TOP