Table 2.
Comparison of high and moderate gradings.
| Grading | Cases | nrTMS | Awake | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36 (36.0) | 40 (85.1) | ||||
| Grading high | Rating | Co3 | 18 (50.0) | 34 (85.0) | 0.0228 |
| Co2 | 17 (47.2) | 6 (15.0) | |||
| S3 | 32 (88.9) | 36 (90.0) | |||
| S2 | 4 (11.1) | 4 (10.0) | |||
| Cl2 | 25 (69.4) | 28 (70.0) | |||
| Cl1 | 13 (36.1) | 6 (15.0) | |||
| Sum of points | 6 | 11 (30.6) | 10 (25.0) | 0.2022 | |
| 7 | 14 (38.9) | 10 (25.0) | |||
| 8 | 8 (22.2) | 18 (45.0) | |||
| 9 | 3 (8.3) | 2 (5.0) | |||
| Outcome | no new | 25 (69.4) | 22 (55.0) | 0.4205 | |
| transient | 7 (19.4) | 14 (35.0) | |||
| permanent | 2 (5.6) | 3 (7.5) | |||
| complication | 2 (5.6) | 1 (2.5) | |||
| EOR | GTR | 30 (83.3) | 28 (70.0) | 0.1903 | |
| STR | 6 (16.7) | 12 (30.0) | |||
| Cases | 53 (53.0) | 7 (14.9) | |||
| Grading moderate | Rating | Co3 | 4 (7.5) | 0 | 0.2474 |
| Co2 | 25 (47.2) | 7 (100) | |||
| S3 | 27 (50.9) | 5 (71.4) | |||
| S2 | 21 (39.6) | 1 (14.3) | |||
| Cl2 | 10 (18.9) | 1 (14.3) | |||
| Cl1 | 12 (22.6) | 0 | |||
| Sum of points | 3 | 15 (28.3) | 0 | 0.1725 | |
| 4 | 18 (34.0) | 2 (28.6) | |||
| 5 | 20 (37.7) | 5 (71.4) | |||
| Outcome | no new | 36 (67.9) | 6 (85.7) | 0.9253 | |
| transient | 10 (18.9) | 1 (14.3) | |||
| permanent | 1 (1.9) | 0 | |||
| complication | 6 (11.3) | 0 | |||
| EOR | GTR | 46 (86.8) | 6 (85.7) | >0.9999 | |
| STR | 7 (13.2) | 1 (14.3) | |||
The table shows the comparison of ratings and outcomes of patients who were graded with highly or moderately language eloquent tumors. The threshold for the differentiation between GTR and STR was >95% of the initial tumor volume (EOR = extent of resection, GTR = gross total resection, STR = subtotal resection, Co3 = high cortical, Co2 = moderate cortical, S3 = high subcortical, S2 = moderate subcortical, Cl2 = high clinical, Cl1 = moderate clinical).