Roberts, David W.

SummaryObjectivesInterictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) have been linked to memory impairment, but the spatial and temporal dynamics of this relationship remain elusive. In the present study, we aim to systematically characterize the brain areas and times at which IEDs affect memory.MethodsEighty epilepsy patients participated in a delayed free recall task while undergoing intracranial electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring. We analyzed the locations and timing of IEDs relative to the behavioral data in order to measure their effects on memory.ResultsOverall IED rates did not correlate with task performance across subjects (r = 0.03, p = 0.8). However, at a finer temporal scale, within‐subject memory was negatively affected by IEDs during the encoding and recall periods of the task but not during the rest and distractor periods (p < 0.01, p < 0.001, p = 0.3, and p = 0.8, respectively). The effects of IEDs during encoding and recall were stronger in the left hemisphere than in the right (p < 0.05). Of six brain areas analyzed, IEDs in the inferior‐temporal, medial‐temporal, and parietal areas significantly affected memory (false discovery rate < 0.05).SignificanceThese findings reveal a network of brain areas sensitive to IEDs with key nodes in temporal as well as parietal lobes. They also demonstrate the time‐dependent effects of IEDs in this network on memory.

Abstract BACKGROUND Extent of resection (EOR) correlates with glioblastoma outcomes. Resectability and EOR depend on anatomical, clinical, and surgeon factors. Resectability likely influences outcome in and of itself, but an accurate measurement of resectability remains elusive. An understanding of resectability and the factors that influence it may provide a means to control a confounder in clinical trials and provide reference for decision making. OBJECTIVE To provide proof of concept of the use of the collective wisdom of experienced brain tumor surgeons in assessing glioblastoma resectability. METHODS We surveyed 13 academic tumor neurosurgeons nationwide to assess the resectability of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Participants reviewed 20 cases, including digital imaging and communications in medicine-formatted pre- and postoperative magnetic resonance images and clinical vignettes. The selected cases involved a variety of anatomical locations and a range of EOR. Participants were asked about surgical goal, eg, gross total resection, subtotal resection (STR), or biopsy, and rationale for their decision. We calculated a “resectability index” for each lesion by pooling responses from all 13 surgeons. RESULTS Neurosurgeons’ individual surgical goals varied significantly ( P = .015), but the resectability index calculated from the surgeons’ pooled responses was strongly correlated with the percentage of contrast-enhancing residual tumor ( R = 0.817, P < .001). The collective STR goal predicted intraoperative decision of intentional STR documented on operative notes ( P < .01) and nonresectable residual ( P < .01), but not resectable residual. CONCLUSION In this pilot study, we demonstrate the feasibility of measuring the resectability of glioblastoma through crowdsourcing. This tool could be used to quantify resectability, a potential confounder in neuro-oncology clinical trials.