Cited by 36Neurological disorders and treatmentsObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

Tract-based analysis of target engagement by subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment resistant depression

Open access
Clark, Darren L., Johnson, Kara A., Butson, Christopher R., Lebel, Catherine, Gobbi, David, Ramasubbu, Rajamannar, Kiss, Zelma H.T.·2020·Brain stimulation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of subcallosal cingulate cortex (SCC) is a promising investigational therapy for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). However, outcomes vary, likely due to suboptimal DBS placement. Ideal placement is proposed to stimulate 4 SCC white matter bundles; however, no quantitative data have linked activation of these target tracts to response. OBJECTIVE: Here we used the volume of tissue activated (VTA) and probabilistic diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to quantify tract activation relating to response. METHODS: DTI was performed in 19 TRD patients who received SCC-DBS. We defined clinical response as >48% reduction from baseline in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Bilateral VTAs were generated based on subject-specific stimulation parameters. Patient-specific tract maps emanating from the VTAs were calculated using whole-brain probabilistic DTI. The four target tracts were isolated using tract-specific quantification and examined for overlap with DBS activated tissue. RESULTS: Medial frontal and temporal projections were stimulated in all responders at 6 and 12 months. Individual tract-based generalized linear mixed model analysis revealed a significant tract-by-response interaction at both 6 (F(1,135) = 3.828, p = 0.001) and 12 (F(1,135) = 5.688, p < 0.001) months, with post hoc tests revealing a response-related increase in cingulum activation at 6 months (t(135) = 2.418, p = 0.017) and decrease in forceps minor activation at 12 months (t(135) = -2.802, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: A wider profile of white matter tracts, particularly to the medial frontal, was associated with DBS response. Cingulum bundle stimulation may promote early response and excess stimulation of the forceps minor might be detrimental. Our work supports prospective patient-specific targeting to inform personalized DBS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brs.2020.03.006

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a subsequent retrospective analysis of an independent cohort of 19 treatment-resistant depression patients, only activation of the cingulum correlated with response at 6 months, while activation of the forceps minor negatively correlated to response.

    “In this group of patients with a lower response rate than the original study (RS: 47.4% vs 81.9%),only activation of one of the four bundles, the cingulum, correlated with response at 6 months, while activation of the forceps minor negatively correlated to response.”

    From Deep brain stimulation for depression. (2022) · cites this paper as [30]

  • In one SCC DBS study, only activation of the cingulum correlated with response, though only half of participants were responders and inclusion of other fibers was unclear.

    “In one study of SCC DBS only activation of the cingulum correlated with response though only half of this trial's participants were responders and it is unclear to what extent the forceps minor, uncinate fasciculus or subcortical fibers were fully included in the surgical target [30].”

    From Deep brain stimulation for depression. (2022) · cites this paper as [30]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Johnson H, Harris G, Williams K. BRAINSFit: mutual information rigid regis- trations of whole-brain 3D images, using the insight toolkit. Insight J 2007;10: 1e10.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clark, D. L., Johnson, K. A., Butson, C. R., Lebel, C., Gobbi, D., Ramasubbu, R., & Kiss, Z. H. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Kiss, Zelma H.T.
Venue
Brain stimulation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
1094-1101
ISSN
  • 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-861X
OpenAlex
W3010852673
Cited by
36
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain stimulation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
deep brain stimulation, treatment-resistant depression, cingulum, forceps minor, volume of tissue activated, treatment response prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Corpus Callosum, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Deep Brain Stimulation, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant, Connectome, White Matter, Patient-Specific Modeling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review