Distributed changes of the functional connectome in patients with glioblastoma

Glioblastoma might have widespread effects on the neural organization and cognitive function, and even focal lesions may be associated with distributed functional alterations. However, functional changes do not necessarily follow obvious anatomical patterns and the current understanding of this interrelation is limited. In this study, we used resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate changes in global functional connectivity patterns in 15 patients with glioblastoma. For six patients we followed longitudinal trajectories of their functional connectome and structural tumour evolution using bi-monthly follow-up scans throughout treatment and disease progression. In all patients, unilateral tumour lesions were associated with inter-hemispherically symmetric network alterations, and functional proximity of tumour location was stronger linked to distributed network deterioration than anatomical distance. In the longitudinal subcohort of six patients, we observed patterns of network alterations with initial transient deterioration followed by recovery at first follow-up, and local network deterioration to precede structural tumour recurrence by two months. In summary, the impact of focal glioblastoma lesions on the functional connectome is global and linked to functional proximity rather than anatomical distance to tumour regions. Our findings further suggest a relevance for functional network trajectories as a possible means supporting early detection of tumour recurrence

Patients' and physicians' interpretation of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity

To test if and how chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) is perceived differently by patients and physicians, making assessment and interpretation challenging. We performed a secondary analysis of the CI-PeriNomS study which included 281 patients with stable CIPN. We tested: (a) the association between patients' perception of activity limitation in performing eight common tasks and neurological impairment and (b) how the responses to questions related to these daily activities are interpreted by the treating oncologist. To achieve this, we compared patients' perception of their activity limitation with neurological assessment and the oncologists' blind interpretation. Distribution of the scores attributed by oncologists to each daily life maximum limitation (“impossible”) generated three groups: Group 1 included limitations oncologists attributed mainly to motor impairment; Group 2 ones mainly attributed to sensory impairment and Group 3 ones with uncertain motor and sensory impairment. Only a subset of questions showed a significant trend between severity in subjective limitation, reported by patients, and neurological impairment. In Group 1, neurological examination confirmed motor impairment in only 51%-65% of patients; 76%-78% of them also had vibration perception impairment. In Group 2, sensory impairment ranged from 84% to 100%; some degree of motor impairment occurred in 43%-56% of them. In Group 3 strength reduction was observed in 49%-50% and sensory perception was altered in up to 82%. Interpretation provided by the panel of experienced oncologists was inconsistent with the neurological impairment. These observations highlight the need of a core set of outcome measures for future CIPN trials

Patients' and physicians' interpretation of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity

To test if and how chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) is perceived differently by patients and physicians, making assessment and interpretation challenging. We performed a secondary analysis of the CI-PeriNomS study which included 281 patients with stable CIPN. We tested: (a) the association between patients' perception of activity limitation in performing eight common tasks and neurological impairment and (b) how the responses to questions related to these daily activities are interpreted by the treating oncologist. To achieve this, we compared patients' perception of their activity limitation with neurological assessment and the oncologists' blind interpretation. Distribution of the scores attributed by oncologists to each daily life maximum limitation ("impossible") generated three groups: Group 1 included limitations oncologists attributed mainly to motor impairment; Group 2 ones mainly attributed to sensory impairment and Group 3 ones with uncertain motor and sensory impairment. Only a subset of questions showed a significant trend between severity in subjective limitation, reported by patients, and neurological impairment. In Group 1, neurological examination confirmed motor impairment in only 51%-65% of patients; 76%-78% of them also had vibration perception impairment. In Group 2, sensory impairment ranged from 84% to 100%; some degree of motor impairment occurred in 43%-56% of them. In Group 3 strength reduction was observed in 49%-50% and sensory perception was altered in up to 82%. Interpretation provided by the panel of experienced oncologists was inconsistent with the neurological impairment. These observations highlight the need of a core set of outcome measures for future CIPN trials