Keywords
migraine disorders - magnetic resonance imaging - FreeSurfer - prophylactic treatment
Palavras-chave
enxaqueca - ressonância magnética - Free Surfer - tratamento profilático
Migraine, the most prevalent neurological disease, affects mostly females at the peak
of productivity in life[1]. It is characterized by paroxysmal intense unilateral, throbbing head pain attacks
accompanied by varying combinations of hypersensitivity to light, sound and smell,
nausea, vomiting, as well as a variety of autonomic, cognitive, emotional and motor
disturbances[2].
Variations in cortical thickness have been found in many physiological conditions
and neurological disorders, including migraine[3], but the relevance, reversibility, and nature of these changes remain controversial[4],[5]. Among other findings, voxel-based morphometry and diffusion tensor imaging have
revealed thickening of the somatosensory cortex[3],[4],[6], increased gray matter density in the caudate nucleus[7] and gray matter volume loss in the superior temporal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus,
precentral gyrus, anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, parietal operculum, middle
and inferior frontal gyrus and bilateral insula[6]. Changes in cortical or subcortical structures depend on the frequency of migraine
attacks for a number of cortical regions[3],[7]. Functional imaging techniques used to measure relative activations in different
brain areas point to a migraine generator in the brainstem, probably in the dorsal
rostral pons[8].
Available data suggest that some cerebral changes are associated with longer disease
duration and increased migraine frequency. Migraine has a benign course and improves
with age[9]. This contradicts possible cumulative migraine-related effects on brain structure.
It remains unclear whether the migraine-related structural changes are a consequence
of repetitive attacks or a substratum that contributes to the migraine susceptibility.
Few studies have focused on the reversibility of migraine-related cerebral changes.
The main goal of this study was to correlate migraine improvement, after prophylactic
therapy, with cortical thickness changes.
METHODS
Participants
This study was performed at the Headache Unit, Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga
Filho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and CDPI Neuroimaging facility, Rio de Janeiro (Local
ethics committee approval #123/11 according to the Declaration of Helsinki).
Sixty-eight prophylaxis-naïve patients with episodic migraine with aura, migraine
without aura, and chronic migraine (IHS-II[10] and, retrospectively, IHS-III beta[11] diagnostic criteria), successively selected either from the University Hospital
headache outpatient unit or private practice (MV), were eligible to participate in
this study. Patients with claustrophobia and/or any other known contraindication did
not qualify. Seventeen patients were excluded due to technical errors in magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) data acquisition, 29 refused to be scanned or did not fulfill
the inclusion criteria, and three were removed because of MRI post-processing technical
concerns. From the original 25 historical headache-free participants selected at the
CDPI for comparison, six were removed for optimal age and gender matching. A comprehensive
neurological examination was performed to exclude concomitant systemic or neurological
disorders.
Before any prophylactic treatment, subjects provided information about the average
number of attacks per month for at least the last three months, attack duration, and
severity as mild, moderate, intense or very intense according to their impact on daily
activity. A headache index (HI) was calculated as the attack duration (hours) multiplied
by the frequency of attacks in one month. Subjects underwent a first scan and, after
image acquisition, routine prophylaxis (usual care according to our individualized
routine procedures as for every new migraine patient without any drug preference)
was prescribed. After a variable period of time (1,893.8 ± 555.3 days, min = 339;
max = 2,247) patients were rescanned under identical protocols. The clinical variables
and the HI were recorded again.
MRI acquisition and analysis
The MRI data were acquired on a 3 Tesla (T) scanner (Magnetom Trio Tim, Siemens, Erlangen,
Germany), using a 12-channel head coil. The MRI protocol included: sagittal T1 3D
magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE) - weighted image (TR, 2530 ms;
TE, 3.45 ms; inversion time, 1100 ms; FOV 256 mm; matrix, 256 x 256; 1.0 mm section
thickness, flip angle, 7; voxel size, 1.3 x 1.0 x 1.3 mm), The participants' heads
were stabilized with tape across the forehead and padding around the sides. All MRIs
were reviewed by experienced neuroradiologists and were of good quality for post-processing.
Cortical thickness and statistics
Cortical reconstruction and volumetric segmentation was performed using Free Surfer
version 5.0.0 (http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu) normalization of intensity; tessellation
of the gray matter/white matter boundary; automated topology correction; surface deformation
following intensity gradients to optimally place the gray matter/white matter and
gray matter/CSF borders at the location where the greatest shift in intensity defines
these transitions; and inflation of the brain.
This method used both intensity and continuity information from the entire three-dimensional
MR volume in segmentation and deformation procedures to produce representations of
cortical thickness, calculated as the closest distance from the gray matter/white
matter boundary to the gray matter/CSF boundary at each vertex on the tessellated
surface. Once an accurate white matter/gray matter surface had been created, the pial
surface was generated by expanding the white matter surface, so that it closely followed
the gray/CSF intensity gradient without crossing the white matter surface boundary.
After the pial surface was generated, it was visually checked for defects that may
have been created during automatic topology fixing. If the surface appeared to deviate
from the gray matter/CSF boundary, manual editing was performed.
Cortical thickness maps were calculated for each participant. Mean cortical thickness
was measured and statistically compared using the Query Design Estimate Contrast (QDEC)
tool, a single-binary application in FreeSurfer software, which identifies group differences.
Analysis of cortical thickness was adjusted for age and gender, using a smoothing
factor of 10. Free Surfer is hypothesis-free and can localize group differences in
cortical thickness. All cortical regions were considered. Corrections for multiple
comparisons in cortical thickness data were performed by the QDEC tool using Monte-Carlo
simulation (significance set at p < 0.05), available in Free Surfer.
Normality of thickness data distributions were tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test.
The data obtained from neuroimaging and clinical assessments were correlated and analyzed
by Spearman's correlation coefficient, p < 0.05. Differences were tested using the
Student's t-tests for paired samples. The Wilcoxon test was used for non-parametric
statistics. Effect sizes (Cohen's) were included to demonstrate the magnitude of the
difference between the migraine patients and controls. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) of approximately 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8 were considered to be small, medium and large
effects, respectively. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 16.0 was used
for this analysis.
RESULTS
Seven patients with migraine with aura and 12 patients with migraine without aura
(33.9 ± 8.6 years old, one male. According to IHS-III criteria: two with chronic migraine)
were scanned pre- and post-treatment; and 19 matched healthy controls (33.1 ± 9 years
old, one male) were scanned once. The HI in the patients improved by 76.9% on average
between the first and second scan (initial value: 159.8 ± 125.5; final value: 30.1
± 65.9; p < 0.001) ([Table 1]).
Table 1
Monthly headache characteristics before and after treatment.
|
Variable
|
Treatment
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Min.
|
Median
|
Max.
|
p-value
|
|
Headache frequency
|
Pre-treatment
|
6.6
|
4.2
|
1.0
|
5.0
|
16.0
|
<0.001
|
|
Post-treatment
|
2.0
|
2.2
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
8.0
|
|
|
Attack duration
|
Pre-treatment
|
28.8
|
24.7
|
6.0
|
12.0
|
72.0
|
0.001
|
|
Post-treatment
|
12.0
|
17.5
|
0.0
|
6.0
|
72.0
|
|
|
Headache index
|
Pre-treatment
|
159.8
|
125.5
|
8.0
|
144.0
|
384.0
|
<0.001
|
|
Post-treatment
|
30.1
|
65.9
|
0.0
|
8.0
|
288.0
|
|
|
Percent HI improvement
|
|
76.9
|
31.1
|
0.0
|
87.5
|
100.0
|
-
|
Frequency: headache days per month. Attack duration estimated in hours. Headache index
(HI): frequency x duration.
First scan vs. second scan comparisons in the patients
The cortical thickness decreased by more than 1% in the second scan in nine (left
hemisphere) and eight (right hemisphere) regions, and increased more than 1% in four
(in each hemisphere) regions ([Table 2]). The areas in the left hemisphere with a significant cortical thickness decrease
were: fusiform, lingual, posterior cingulate, and rostral middle frontal. Only in
the left transverse temporal area did the thickness increase significantly. The areas
in the right hemisphere with a significant thickness decrease were: caudal middle
frontal, isthmus of cingulate, pars triangularis, posterior cingulate, rostral middle
frontal and superior frontal. No cortical area showed a significant thickness increase
on the right side. No thickness variation remained significant after the Monte Carlo
corrections for multiple comparisons.
Table 2
Cortical thickness variation in the second scan.
|
Variable
|
Left hemisphere
|
Right hemisphere
|
|
% Variation
|
Effect size
|
p-value
|
% Variation
|
Effect size
|
p-value
|
|
Caudal anterior cingulate
|
-2.31
|
-0.33
|
0.067
|
-1.38
|
-0.18
|
0.096
|
|
Caudal middle frontal
|
-1.11
|
-0.28
|
0.058
|
-1.55
|
-0.38
|
0.013
|
|
Inferior temporal
|
-1.48
|
-0.39
|
0.053
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Isthmus of cingulate
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-1.63
|
-0.17
|
0.008
|
|
Lateral orbitofrontal
|
2.24
|
0.21
|
0.253
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Lingual
|
-1.45
|
-0.30
|
0.003
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Fusiform
|
-1,52
|
-0,33
|
0,029
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Medial orbitofrontal
|
1.96
|
0.20
|
0.344
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Parahippocampal
|
-1.04
|
-0.11
|
0.310
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Pars triangularis
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-2.36
|
-0.39
|
0.002
|
|
Posterior cingulate
|
-1.01
|
-0.18
|
0.031
|
-1.45
|
-0.22
|
0.001
|
|
Rostral anterior cingulate
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-1.56
|
-0.17
|
0.363
|
|
Rostral middle frontal
|
-1.13
|
-0.28
|
0.012
|
-1.82
|
-0.45
|
0.005
|
|
Superior frontal
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-1.12
|
-0.26
|
0.039
|
|
Frontal pole
|
-2.25
|
-0.27
|
0.069
|
1.38
|
0.14
|
0.564
|
|
Temporal pole
|
2.87
|
0.27
|
0.184
|
3.23
|
0.21
|
0.339
|
|
Transverse temporal
|
1.72
|
0.22
|
0.012
|
1.75
|
0.43
|
0.091
|
|
Insula
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1.33
|
0.19
|
0.24
|
Percent variations (increase or decrease) greater than 1% in cortical thickness at
the second scan following prophylactic treatment. p-value : paired t-test. Effect
size: Cohen's
The HI variation correlated negatively with cortical thickness changes in different
areas of the left hemisphere ([Table 3]). The left posterior cingulate thickness was the only region with a significant
reduction in thickness after treatment and correlation (negative) with the HI.
Table 3
Correlations between % headache index (HI) improvement and cortical thickness (second
scan).
|
Variable
|
rs
|
p-value
|
|
Caudal middle frontal
|
-0.496
|
0.043
|
|
Cuneus
|
-0.482
|
0.037
|
|
Isthmus cingulate
|
-0.464
|
0.045
|
|
Medial orbitofrontal
|
-0.515
|
0.024
|
|
Paracentral
|
-0.533
|
0.019
|
|
Posterior cingulate
|
-0.483
|
0.036
|
|
Superior parietal
|
-0.514
|
0.024
|
All values correspond to the left hemisphere. No significant correlation was found
at the right hemisphere. rs: Spearman's correlation coefficient.
First scan vs. controls comparisons
In the left hemisphere, the cortex was significantly thicker, in patients, only in
the pars opercularis. The effect sizes were greater than 0.4 in the isthmus cingulate,
paracentral, pericalcarine, post-central, posterior cingulate, precuneus, rostral
anterior cingulate and superior parietal cortices. The thickness was significantly
reduced in patients in the entorhinal cortex and temporal pole. The effect sizes were
greater than 0.4 in the orbitofrontal, superior temporal and temporal pole cortices.
In the right hemisphere, the cortex was significantly thicker in patients in the paracentral,
post-central, precuneus and superior parietal areas. The effect sizes were greater
than 0.4 in the inferior parietal, isthmus cingulate, paracentral, pericalcarine,
post-central, posterior cingulate, precentral, precuneus, superior parietal and supramarginal
areas. The thickness was significantly reduced in patients in the entorhinal cortex.
The effect sizes were greater than 0.4 in the pars orbitalis, temporal pole and insulacortices.
Second scan vs. controls comparisons
In the left hemisphere, the cortex was significantly thicker in patients in the paracentral
and pars opercularis. The effect size was greater than 0.4 in the isthmus cingulate,
paracentral, pars opercularis, pericalcarine, post-central, precuneus, rostral anterior
cingulate, posterior cingulate, and superior parietal cortices. The thickness was
significantly reduced in patients only in the entorhinal cortex. The effect sizes
were greater than 0.4 in the entorhinal, parahippocampal, superior temporal and temporal
pole cortices.
In the right hemisphere, the cortex was significantly thicker in patients in the paracentral,
post-central, precuneus and superior parietal areas. The effect size was greater than
0.4 in the isthmus cingulate, lingual, paracentral, pericalcarine, post-central, precentral,
precuneus supramarginal and superior parietal areas.
Monte-Carlo simulation
In the patient group, there was no significant thickness variation comparing the second
scan with the first scan. The [Figure] shows the cortical areas in the right hemisphere where the cortex is significantly
thicker comparing the patients' first and second scans with controls.
Figure The figure shows cortical areas in the right hemisphere where the cortex is significantly
thicker comparing the patients' first and second scans with controls. Regions of increased
cortical thickness or surface area are shown in red (color-coded according to t value), and regions of decreased cortical thickness or surface area are shown in
blue (color-coded according to t value). The color bar scale is logarithmic and represents –log 10(p): 2.5 corresponds
to a p value of 0.05 and 5 corresponds to a p value of 0.00001. Only clusters surviving
multiple comparisons using the Monte Carlo simulation (10,000 permutations) are displayed.
Cortical areas: A: Right precentral. B: Right post-central. C: Right superior parietal.
D: Right precuneus. E: Right supramarginal. F: Right cuneus.
DISCUSSION
This was one of the first attempts to correlate improvement of cortical thickness
pre- and post-treatment in migraine. After multiple comparisons correction, only the
right hemisphere showed thickness changes (increase), in patients vs. controls, located
in the somatosensory and superior parietal cortices, both in the first and second
scans. In addition, the right cortex was thicker in the second scan in the precentral,
supramarginal, cuneus and precuneus when compared to controls. The effect size analysis
showed small changes in various areas, specifically in the lingual, fusiform and caudal
anterior cingulate cortices on the left (thickness reduction); and caudal middle frontal,
pars triangularis, and rostral middle frontal (thickness reduction), and transverse
temporal (thickness increase) cortices on the right. Patients improved significantly
following treatment as shown by the HI reduction, but there were no corresponding
changes in cortical thickness after correction for multiple comparison. Regression
analysis showed significant negative correlations between the HI improvement and cortical
thickness changes only in the left hemisphere.
The only area with significant thickness change (reduction, before Monte-Carlo correction)
after treatment and simultaneous significant correlation (negative) with HI improvement
in the second scan was the left posterior cingulate cortex. This region has been shown
to be involved with nociception[12]. Pain has been shown experimentally to deactivate the posterior cingulate cortex[13]. This deactivation was reduced in patients with chronic pain[14]. The posterior cingulate cortex is part of the default mode network, a relevant
area in pain physiology[15]. Reduced brain volumes in posterior cingulate cortex, a region reported to have
antinociceptive functions, have been reported in various chronic pain conditions,
such as phantom limb pain[16], fibromyalgia[17], headache[18] and trigeminal neuropathic pain[19]. In contrast, we did not find differences in posterior cingulate cortex thickness
between the controls and patients. However, with our finding of decreased left posterior
cingulate cortex thickness with HI improvement, we speculate that, in migraine, less
antinociceptive activity in the left posterior cingulate cortex is required as the
pain decreases.
In our study, the migraineurs showed a significant increase in cortical precuneus
thickness in the right hemisphere when compared with controls. Maleki et al. reported
that female migraine patients have thicker posterior insula and precuneus cortices
compared with male migraineurs and healthy controls of both sexes[20]. The precuneus was shown to be more activated in females[20], who are particularly susceptible to migraine. The anterior, central and posterior
precuneus are involved with sensorimotor processing, cognition/associative processing,
and visual processing, respectively. The three areas are functionally connected to
the superior parietal cortex, paracentral lobule and motor cortex; the dorsolateral
prefrontal, dorsomedial prefrontal and multimodal lateral inferior parietal cortex;
and adjacent visual cortical regions[21]. Schwedt et al. also found negative correlations between pain thresholds and cortical
thickness in the left posterior cingulate/precuneus in healthy individuals[22]. In contrast, migraineurs without aura exhibited positive correlations between pain
thresholds and cortical thickness in the right precuneus[22]. Previous task-based fMRI studies have shown greater visual stimuli-induced precuneus
activation in migraineurs without aura than in controls[23]. The changes found in the present and previous studies, associated with the fact
that migraine patients may suffer visual, cognitive and sensorimotor deficits during
attacks[24], suggest that the cuneus is particularly dysfunctional in migraine.
In a previous report, migraineurs exhibited enhanced brain activation in the cerebellum
anterior lobe/culmen, lingual gyrus, precuneus (all bilaterally), and the left cuneus
while viewing negative pictures compared with neutral pictures[25]. There are extensive connections between the precuneus and the dorsal premotor area,
the supplementary motor area and the anterior cingulate cortex[26]. Compared with controls, migraineurs without aura showed a significant decrease
in functional resting-state connectivity between the left precuneus and the left inferior
and superior occipital gyrus, bilateral middle occipital gyrus, bilateral cuneus,
bilateral superior parietal lobules, bilateral somatosensory cortex, bilateral dorsolateral
prefrontal cortices, right premotor cortex, pons, bilateral cerebellar posterior lobes,
right paracentral lobule, right middle cingulate gyrus and bilateral supplementary
motor areas[27]. All these brain regions are involved with pain processing[23].
The somatosensory cortex has been shown to be thicker in migraine patients, which
is in line with the present findings. Activation of the somatosensory cortices has
been reported in approximately 75% of human imaging studies of pain[28]. This area is strongly implicated in the ascending trigemino-cortical nociceptive
pathway. Thickening of the somatosensory cortex has been demonstrated in migraine[6],[29]. Migraine patients with a higher headache frequency (8-14 days/month) showed increased
post-central gyrus thickness in comparison with low frequency (less than two days/months)
patients[3]. Kim et al. compared migraine patients with controls and found that migraine patients
had cortical thickening in bilateral post-central gyrus[30]. Whether these abnormalities contribute to migraine susceptibility or, conversely,
are the consequence of repeated attacks, is still a matter of debate.
Our results showed that migraineurs presented with cortical thickening in two areas
of the parietal lobe (superior parietal lobe and supramarginal gyrus). The inferior
parietal lobe is mainly involved in top-down control of executive functions and in
cognitive aspects of processing sensory stimuli, including pain[31]. Migraine with aura patients showed bilateral thickening of regions in the inferior
parietal lobe[32], in contrast with another study[33].
Although several studies, including ours, confirm cortical thickness changes in migraine,
a larger patient cohort failed to replicate cortical thickness findings in both migraine
patients with, and without, aura relative to controls[5]. Methodological issues are probably the best explanation for those discrepancies.
Our study confirms that neuroimaging may demonstrate changes in cortical areas previously
shown to be involved with the lateral pain system. That system consists of neurons
of the spinothalamic tract that project to the somatosensory nuclei of thalamus, which
in turn transfer nociceptive information to the primary and secondary somatosensory
areas, and posterior insula; these discriminatory areas determine the localization,
the intensity, and the quality of pain and are connected to the parietal cortex[34].
Most of our findings were lateralized. Since our patients presented with bilateral
( five individuals), alternating (nine), predominantly left (four), or right (one)
pain, the laterality of our data cannot be explained by headache side preference,
even though predominantly left-sided headache was more frequent. Bilateral reduction
in regional cerebral blood flow has been documented in the cingulofrontal transitional
cortex and posterior cingulate cortex during noxious stimulation of the left hand[35]. Similar to our results, in patients with HIV-associated distal neuropathic pain,
changes (increase) were restricted to the left posterior cingulate cortex[36]. A negative correlation between pain thresholds and cortical thickness was also
reported on the left[22]. Further data with larger samples are required for better understanding of the laterality
findings.
The potential reversibility of cortical changes following treatment suggested in this
study raises multiple questions. Firstly, it remains to be determined what the pathological
bases of the thickness changes are, and how migraine triggers the tissue adaptations[4]. Secondly, what are the mechanisms responsible for the return to previous thickness,
an effect probably related to headache frequency and duration? Thirdly, what are the
implications of these changes in cortical spreading depression? Fourthly, how could
these changes, either isolated or in combination with other neuroimaging findings,
eventually serve as biomarkers for diagnosis, severity, or drug efficacy?
Cortical thickness changes occur because of hypo- or hyper-function secondary to local,
near or distant connections[37]. Although treatment can theoretically change cortical thickness in affected regions,
the present results do not allow causation conclusions. Our study has strong aspects.
All patients were treatment naïve at the first scan; they were examined by the same
physicians under a unique protocol and usual care, reproducing real life treatment;
and the observation was over a long period of time, on average. There are many weak
points to be considered. Firstly, the time span between the first and second scan
in our patients varied considerably. Secondly, due to the study length, patients did
not record a precise headache diary, leading to potential recall biases. Thirdly,
the sample size was relatively small. Fourthly, controls were not scanned twice, at
the same time as the patients. Finally, although we are aware that cortical thickness
may be affected by fortuitous influences, to the best of our knowledge, no confounding
factors influenced the results presented herein. Nevertheless, the significant correlations
between the HI percentage variation and cortical thickness reduction in regions known
to be affected in migraineurs, point to the hypothesis that anatomical variations
induced by the disease are not irreversible and allow the hypothesis that treatment
may reverse cortical thickness modifications in migraine.
Taken together, the data show that there are differences in cortical thickness between
migraine patients and controls. Among the regions with significant change in cortical
thickness following preventive treatment, the degree of improvement correlated with
reduction in thickness in the left posterior cingulate. Previous studies have shown
that this area is involved with pain processing and is affected in headache disorders.
To investigate the reasons for intriguing right-to-left changes and to clarify controversies
still remaining in this field, young migraine-free subjects with migraine parents
should be scanned at base-line and re-examined later in the event of migraine development.