Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 14;28:102435. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102435

Table 1.

List of the studies having addressed preoperative brain reorganization.

Study Number of patients Glioma location Glioma grade Technique Function/network Contralesional activation High inter-subject variability Notes
Sensorimotor system
Baciu et al., 2003 12 (+ venous malformations) L or R motor (rolandic or extra-rolandic) Both fMRI Motor x
Caramia et al., 1998 7 Either hemisphere Both TMS Motor x
Carpentier et al., 2001 17 (including other patient populations) L or R primary sensorimotor cortex Both fMRI Motor Lower degree of reorganization than in congenital conditions
Fandino et al., 1999 11 Close/in L or R central region (M1) Both fMRI Motor x
Krainik et al., 2001 23 (including 1 dysplasia) L or R medial frontal (SMA) Both (LGG and grade III) fMRI Motor x
Krainik et al., 2003 12 L or R medial frontal (SMA) LGG fMRI Motor x Contralesional activation especially in the patients with transient postoperative deficits
Meyer et al., 2003b 9 (including 5 other tumoral and non-tumoral lesions) L or R SM cortex Both PET Motor x Contralesional activation especially in the patients with deficits
Niu et al., 2014 15 Close/in L or R motor areas N/A fMRI (also connectivity) Motor Decreased connectivity between L and R PMC, but nit within these areas the SMA
Roux et al., 2000 5 (including 1 MG and 1 metastasis) Close/in L or R motor strip Both fMRI and IOM Motor x Contralesional activation alternatively attributed to the recruitment of proximal limb muscles (which normally determine a bilateral activation) or to increased effort
Tozakidou et al., 2013 87 (including non-glioma tumors) L or R central region Both fMRI Motor x
Tuntiyatorn et al., 2011 8 (including 3 AVM) L or R M1 Both fMRI Motor x x
Wunderlich et al., 1998 6 L or R precentral Both PET and MEP Motor Reorganization also dependent on specific tumor location (dorsal tumor growth determined ventral displacement associated with preserved function vs. ventrally growing tumors)
Yoshiura et al., 1997 7 (including 3 MG and 2 metastases) L or R pericentral area Both fMRI Motor x Contralesional activation especially in the patients with deficits



Language system
Benzagmout et al., 2007 7 L Broca LGG fMRI and IOM Language x
Briganti et al., 2012 39 LH Both fMRI (and connectivity) Language
Buklina et al., 2013 22 (including 2 MG) Language- dominant hemisphere Both fMRI and functional asymmetry testing Language x x Still LH-dominance for grade I gliomas, MG, and GBM
Chan et al., 2019 1 L IFG including Broca LGG IOM Language N/A
Cho et al., 2018 43 L Broca Both fMRI Language x possible neurovascular uncoupling masking perilesional activation
De Benedictis et al., 2012 1 L frontal (including Broca) LGG IOM Language N/A
Deng et al., 2015 38 L frontal, temporal, parietal (including Broca and Wernicke) Both fMRI Language Lower plasticity than in patients with AVM
Duffau et al., 2001 1 L insula LGG fMRI and IOM Language x
Duffau et al., 2006 12 L insula LGG IOM Language N/A
Holodny et al., 2002 1 L insula, IFG, anterior temporal, and basal ganglia HGG (grade III) fMRI Language x
Ille et al., 2019 18 L perisylvian Both nrTMS Language N/A Two assessments spaced 17 ± 12 months: Greater reshaping in lower grade gliomas and when assessments spaced > 13 months
Krieg et al., 2013 15 (including 2 cavernomas) L language-eloquent Both rTMS Language x
Li et al., 2019 1 L fronto-temporal insular (including Broca) LGG fMRI (and connectivity) Language x x R Broca's area homologue developed the expected connections with the other language-related areas, but indirect connection with Wernicke's area (still in LH)
Lubrano et al., 2010 16 (including 3 cavernomas and 6 circumscribed non-glioma tumors) Dominant IFG Both IOM Language N/A x
Meyer et al., 2003a 7 (including 5 other tumoral and non-tumoral lesions) L perisylvian cortex Both PET Language x
Partovi et al., 2012 57 (including 20 other tumoral and non-tumoral lesions) L Broca or Wernicke Both fMRI Language x x
Petrovich et al., 2004 1 L temporo-parietal HGG (grade III) fMRI and IOM Language x
Plaza et al., 2009 1 L frontal LGG IOM Language N/A
Rösler et al., 2014 50 Close to L language-eloquent areas Both nTMS Language x
Sanai et al., 2008 250 L or R language areas Both IOM Language N/A x
Thiel et al., 2001 61 LH Suspected LGG (but also HGG and other lesions) PET Language x Contralesional activation also involving the cerebellum
Thiel et al., 2005 14 LH (including IFG) Both rTMS Language x
Thiel et al., 2006 17 L temporal or frontal Both PET and rTMS Language x
Tantillo et al., 2016 20 LH Both fMRI and DTI Language x x Higher corpus callosum anisotropy in the patients with codominant vs. left-lateralized language. In HGG vs. LGG, greater variability in the lateralization indices and more frequent bilateral activation
Ulmer et al., 2003 1 L frontal LGG fMRI and IOM Language x Discrepancy between fMRI showing almost only RH activation and IOM confirming LH dominance
Voets et al., 2019 44 Language-dominant hemisphere Both fMRI Language x x
Zhang et al., 2018 78 L language network Both sMRI (+resting-state functional connectivity) Language x In LGG (but not HGG), higher gray-matter volume in medial bilateral cerebellar lobule VII (region with increased spontaneous brain activity in the left hemisphere) + increase in functional connectivity
Zheng et al., 2013 10 L frontal LGG DTI Language Increased left-lateralization of some language fascicles (i.e., ILF and IFOF), involved in compensation



Sensorimotor and language systems
Almairac et al., 2018 84 L or R insula LGG sMRI None x
Herbet et al., 2016 231 Either hemisphere LGG IOM Language, sensory, motor Definition of an atlas of cortical and subcortical plasticity, showing low WM plasticity
Ius et al., 2011 58 Close/in eloquent areas in either hemisphere LGG IOM Language, sensory, motor N/A Defined a 'minimal common brain' of structures with low compensation potential (especially WM)
Ojemann et al., 1996 14 Close to eloquent areas in either hemisphere Both IOM and extraoperative mapping Language, somatosensory, motor Persistence of the activation in the affected area
Ulmer et al., 2004 50 (including non-neoplastic lesions) Eloquent areas in either hemisphere Not specified fMRI and additional methods (e.g., IOM) Language, motor, and visual Commented possible neurovascular uncoupling masking perilesional activation
Zimmermann et al., 2019 13 (including 2 AVM/hemangiomas) Close to L or R sensorimotor cortex Both fMRI and MEG Motor and somatosensory x x General agreement between fMRI and MEG results

Note. AVM = arteriovenous malformation; DTI = diffusion tensor imaging; fMRI = functional magnetic resonance imaging; GBM = glioblastoma; HGG = high-grade glioma; IFOF = Inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus; ILF = inferior longitudinal fasciculus; IOM = intraoperative mapping; LGG = low-grade glioma; L(H) = left (hemisphere); M1 = primary motor cortex; MEG = magnetoencephalography; MEP = motor evoked potentials; MG = meningioma; N/A = not tested; n(r)TMS = navigated (repetitive) transcranial magnetic stimulation; PET = positron emission tomography; PMC = premotor cortex; Post = postoperative; Pre = preoperative; R(H) = right (hemisphere); SMA = supplementary motor cortex; sMRI = structural magnetic resonance imaging.