RESUMO
Patients with meningiomas frequently exhibit impairments in executive functioning. There are few studies specifically examining the role of frontal meningioma localization in executive functioning impairments. This study examines whether frontally located meningiomas are specifically associated with executive functioning impairments in a large sample of meningioma patients before treatment, using an axis-wise and lobe-based approach to meningioma localization. We retrospectively examined cognitive performances in 353 patients with frontal, frontally-involved and non-frontal meningiomas on a battery of tests including tests of executive functioning. We applied an axis-based approach to meningioma location, in addition to qualitative lobe-based localization. We examined the association between meningioma coordinates on an anterior-posterior axis and continuous cognitive performance scores in univariate correlations and linear regression analyses. We also examined the association between meningioma coordinates on an anterior-posterior axis with cognitive impairments in multivariable logistic regression analyses. Meningioma position on the anterior-posterior axis was only univariately associated with mean performance on the Stroop test Interference ratio and Symbol Digit Coding task. There was no (multivariable) association with impairments on tests of executive or non-executive domains. Increased odds of impairment on executive functioning tasks were associated with left-localization (Verbal Fluency) and larger meningioma volumes (Shifting Attention). We did not find a specific relation between a frontal meningioma location and executive functioning impairments, which may be explained by widespread organization of executive functioning throughout the brain, diffuse cognitive effects of the mass of meningiomas, functional reorganization due to neuroplasticity, or functional involvement of less-anteriorly located frontal areas.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Previous research identified many clinical variables that are significantly related to cognitive functioning before surgery. It is not clear whether such variables enable accurate prediction for individual patients' cognitive functioning because statistical significance does not guarantee predictive value. Previous studies did not test how well cognitive functioning can be predicted for (yet) untested patients. Furthermore, previous research is limited in that only linear or rank-based methods with small numbers of variables were used. METHODS: We used various machine learning models to predict preoperative cognitive functioning for 340 patients with glioma across 18 outcome measures. Predictions were made using a comprehensive set of clinical variables as identified from the literature. Model performances and optimized hyperparameters were interpreted. Moreover, Shapley additive explanations were calculated to determine variable importance and explore interaction effects. RESULTS: Best-performing models generally demonstrated above-random performance. Performance, however, was unreliable for 14 out of 18 outcome measures with predictions worse than baseline models for a substantial number of train-test splits. Best-performing models were relatively simple and used most variables for prediction while not relying strongly on any variable. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative cognitive functioning could not be reliably predicted across cognitive tests using the comprehensive set of clinical variables included in the current study. Our results show that a holistic view of an individual patient likely is necessary to explain differences in cognitive functioning. Moreover, they emphasize the need to collect larger cross-center and multimodal data sets.