Disturbed functional brain networks and neurocognitive function in low-grade glioma patients: a graph theoretical analysis of resting-state MEG.
BACKGROUND
To understand neurophysiological mechanisms underlying cognitive dysfunction in low-grade glioma (LGG) patients by evaluating the spatial structure of 'resting-state' brain networks with graph theory.


METHODS
Standardized tests measuring 6 neurocognitive domains were administered in 17 LGG patients and 17 healthy controls. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) recordings were conducted during eyes-closed 'resting state'. The phase lag index (PLI) was computed in seven frequency bands to assess functional connectivity between brain areas. Spatial patterns were characterized with graph theoretical measures such as clustering coefficient (local connectivity), path length (global integration), network small world-ness (ratio of clustering coefficient/path length) and degree correlation (the extent to which connected nodes have similar degrees).


RESULTS
Compared to healthy controls, patients performed poorer on psychomotor functioning, attention, information processing, and working memory. Patients displayed higher short- and long-distance synchronization and clustering coefficient in the theta band, whereas a lower clustering coefficient and small world-ness were observed in the beta band. A lower degree correlation was found in the upper gamma band. LGG patients with higher clustering coefficient, longer path length, and lower degree correlations in delta and lower alpha band were characterized by poorer neurocognitive performance.


CONCLUSIONS
LGG patients display higher short- and long-distance synchronization within the theta band. Network analysis revealed changes (in particularly the theta, beta, and upper gamma band) suggesting disturbed network architecture. Moreover, correlations between network characteristics and neurocognitive performance were found, Widespread changes in the strength and spatial organization of brain networks may be responsible for cognitive dysfunction in glioma patients.
Bosma
Ingeborg
I
Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. i.bosma@vumc.nl.
Reijneveld
Jaap C
JC
Klein
Martin
M
Douw
Linda
L
van Dijk
Bob W
BW
Heimans
Jan J
JJ
Stam
Cornelis J
CJ
Neurosci Lett. 2004 Jan 23;355(1-2):25-8
14729226
Nature. 1998 Jun 4;393(6684):440-2
9623998
Brain. 2009 Jan;132(Pt 1):213-24
18952674
PLoS One. 2008 Apr 30;3(4):e0002051
18446219
J Neurooncol. 2008 May;88(1):77-85
18259691
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 19;103(51):19518-23
17159150
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Apr;2(4):229-39
11283746
Neuroimage. 2008 Aug 1;42(1):1-9
18511300
Lancet. 2000 Sep 9;356(9233):912-3
11036900
Cereb Cortex. 2007 Jan;17(1):92-9
16452642
Phys Rev Lett. 2001 Nov 5;87(19):198701
11690461
Hum Brain Mapp. 2007 Nov;28(11):1178-93
17266107
Ann Neurol. 2006 Jan;59(1):128-38
16278872
Neuroimage. 2006 Mar;30(1):245-53
16253520
Ann Neurol. 2003 Oct;54(4):514-20
14520665
Hum Brain Mapp. 2007 Mar;28(3):247-61
16779797
Phys Rev Lett. 2000 Mar 20;84(12):2758-61
11017318
Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Feb;30(2):403-16
18072237
Neuro Oncol. 2008 Oct;10(5):734-44
18650489
J Gen Psychol. 1985 Apr;112(2):201-10
4056765
Lancet. 2002 Nov 2;360(9343):1361-8
12423981
Phys Rev E Stat Phys Plasmas Fluids Relat Interdiscip Topics. 1995 Feb;51(2):980-994
9962737
Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Jan;30(1):200-8
17990300
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Sep;117(9):2039-49
16859985
Oncology (Williston Park). 1993 Jul;7(7):97-104, 107; discussion 108-11
8347464
Schizophr Res. 2006 Oct;87(1-3):60-6
16875801
Neuroscientist. 2001 Oct;7(5):406-18
11597100
Biol Psychiatry. 2007 Aug 1;62(3):270-3
17336944
Exp Neurol. 2008 Aug;212(2):285-90
18534578
Neuroimage. 2006 Sep;32(3):1335-44
16815039
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1982 Jan;53(1):119-24
6173196
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1978 Nov;41(11):1036-42
712372
Neuropsychologia. 1974 Jul;12(3):323-30
4421777
Schizophr Bull. 2008 Sep;34(5):927-43
18562344
Neurosci Lett. 2006 Jul 24;402(3):273-7
16678344
Hum Brain Mapp. 2008 Dec;29(12):1368-78
18064590
Lancet Neurol. 2004 Mar;3(3):159-68
14980531