Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Central and peripheral steady-state visual evoked potentials in children with optic pathway gliomas

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Treatment of optic pathway gliomas is prompted by neuroradiological evidence of tumor growth, usually associated with progressive visual loss. Despite therapy, approximately 40% will show visual deterioration. Treatment outcome is largely based on the preservation of vision. However, current visual function assessment is often unreliable in children with optic pathway gliomas who have limited collaboration. Thus, there is a need for new clinical tools to evaluate visual functions in these children. The aim of the study was to assess the value of steady-state visual evoked potentials as a tool to assess function in the central and peripheral visual fields of children with optic pathway gliomas.

Method

Ten patients with optic pathway gliomas and 33 healthy controls (ages 3 to 18 years) were tested using steady-state visual evoked potentials. The dartboard stimulus consisted of one central circle alternating at 16 reversals/s and one peripheral hoop alternating at 14.4 reversals/s, separated by a hoop of gray space. It was presented monocularly at 30% and 96% contrasts.

Results

Results indicated that central signal-to-noise ratios were significantly lower in children with optic pathway gliomas compared to controls. However, no significant group difference was detected in the peripheral visual field.

Conclusion

Steady-state visual evoked potentials could eventually be implemented in the clinical assessment and follow-up of central visual field deficits in uncooperative or nonverbal children but seem to have limited usefulness for evaluation of peripheral visual field deficits. Additional studies are needed to identify testing parameters for full visual field assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kelly JP, Weiss AH (2013) Detection of tumor progression in optic pathway glioma with and without neurofibromatosis type 1. Neuro-oncology 15(11):1560–1567

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ammendola A, Ciccone G, Ammendola E (2006) Utility of multimodal evoked potentials study in neurofibromatosis type 1 of childhood. Pediatr Neurol 34(4):276–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jahraus CD, Tarbell NJ (2006) Optic pathway gliomas. Pediatr Blood Cancer 46(5):586–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. World Health Organisation (2017) Cancer fact sheet

  5. Fisher MJ et al (2013) Functional outcome measures for NF1-associated optic pathway glioma clinical trials. Neurology 81(21 supplement 1):S15–S24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Avery RA, Fisher MJ, Liu GT (2011) Optic pathway gliomas. J Neuroophthalmol 31(3):269–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Robert-Boire V et al (2017) Clinical presentation and outcome of patients with optic pathway glioma. Pediatr Neurol 75:55–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Aquilina K et al (2015) Optic pathway glioma in children: does visual deficit correlate with radiology in focal exophytic lesions? Child Nerv Syst 31(11):2041–2049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Listernick R et al (2007) Optic pathway gliomas in neurofibromatosis-1: controversies and recommendations. Ann Neurol 61(3):189–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Mierlo C et al (2013) Role of visual evoked potentials in the assessment and management of optic pathway gliomas in children. Doc Ophthalmol 127(3):177–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Binning MJ et al (2007) Optic pathway gliomas: a review. Neurosurg Focus 23(5):E2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Balcer LJ et al (2001) Visual loss in children with neurofibromatosis type 1 and optic pathway gliomas: relation to tumor location by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Ophthalmol 131(4):442–445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. de Freitas Dotto P et al (2018) Visual function assessed by visually evoked potentials in optic pathway low-grade gliomas with and without neurofibromatosis type 1. Doc Ophthalmol 136(3):177–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dhermain FG et al (2010) Advanced MRI and PET imaging for assessment of treatment response in patients with gliomas. Lancet Neurol 9(9):906–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Avery RA et al (2015) Longitudinal change of circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in children with optic pathway gliomas. Am J Ophthalmol 160(5):944–952.e1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kalin-Hajdu E et al (2014) Visual acuity of children treated with chemotherapy for optic pathway gliomas. Pediatr Blood Cancer 61(2):223–227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hood DC et al (2004) Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage: a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45(2):492–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fortune B et al (2007) Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48(3):1173–1180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Harding G et al (2002) Field-specific visual-evoked potentials identifying field defects in vigabatrin-treated children. Neurology 58(8):1261–1265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Colenbrander A (2002) Visual standards aspects and ranges of vision loss with emphasis on population surveys. Report prepared for the International Council of Ophthalmology at the 29th International Congress of Ophthalmology, Sydney, Australia

  21. Horton JC, Hoyt WF (1991) The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex. A revision of the classic Holmes map. Arch Ophthalmol 109(6):816–824

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Norcia AM et al (2015) The steady-state visual evoked potential in vision research: a review. J Vis 15(6):4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Matsumoto CS et al (2013) Liquid crystal display screens as stimulators for visually evoked potentials: flash effect due to delay in luminance changes. Doc Ophthalmol 127(2):103–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bach M (1996) The Freiburg Visual Acuity test—automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73(1):49–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Jasper HH (1958) The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 10:371–375

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bach M, Meigen T (1999) Do’s and don’ts in Fourier analysis of steady-state potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 99(1):69–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meigen T, Bach M (1999) On the statistical significance of electrophysiological steady-state responses. Doc Ophthalmol 98(3):207–232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Holladay JT (2004) Visual acuity measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg 30(2):287–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Abdullah S, Boon M, Maddess T (2012) Contrast-response functions of the multifocal steady-state VEP (MSV). Clin Neurophysiol 123(9):1865–1871

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wu J et al (2012) Retinotopic mapping of the peripheral visual field to human visual cortex by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp 33(7):1727–1740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kelly JP, Weiss AH (2006) Comparison of pattern visual-evoked potentials to perimetry in the detection of visual loss in children with optic pathway gliomas. J AAPOS 10(4):298–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wolsey DH et al (2006) Can screening for optic nerve gliomas in patients with neurofibromatosis type I be performed with visual-evoked potential testing? J AAPOS 10(4):307–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Siatkowski RM (2006) VEP testing and visual pathway gliomas: not quite ready for prime time. J AAPOS 10(4):293–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. de Blank PM et al (2017) Optic pathway gliomas in neurofibromatosis type 1: an update: surveillance, treatment indications, and biomarkers of vision. J Neuroophthalmol 37:S23–S32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Falsini B et al (2008) Longitudinal assessment of childhood optic gliomas: relationship between flicker visual evoked potentials and magnetic resonance imaging findings. J Neurooncol 88(1):87–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Trisciuzzi MTS et al (2004) A fast visual evoked potential method for functional assessment and follow-up of childhood optic gliomas. Clin Neurophysiol 115(1):217–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hébert-Lalonde N et al (2014) A frequency-tagging electrophysiological method to identify central and peripheral visual field deficits. Doc Ophthalmol 129(1):17–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hood DC et al (2006) The role of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) latency in understanding optic nerve and retinal diseases. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 104:71

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Kuenzle C et al (1994) Follow-up of optic pathway gliomas in children with neurofibromatosis type 1. Neuropediatrics 25(6):295–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada and the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sainte-Justine for their financial support. We would also like to thank our laboratory technician, Anthony Hosein Poitras Loewen for creation of the stimulus and technical support, as well as Hugues Leduc for his valuable help with the statistics. Lastly, we would like to thank the children and their families for their participation in this study.

Funding

The Brain Tumor Foundation of Canada provided financial support in the form of research funding but had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888 Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canada

    Sarah Zakaib Rassi & Dave Saint-Amour

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sainte-Justine, 3175 Chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, QC, H3T 1C5, Canada

    Luis H. Ospina & Dave Saint-Amour

  3. Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier, Universitaire de Sainte-Justine, 3175 Chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, QC, H3T 1C5, Canada

    Ariane Bochereau & Dave Saint-Amour

  4. Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sainte-Justine, 3175 Chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, QC, H3T 1C5, Canada

    Yvan Samson

  5. Division of Child Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sainte-Justine, 3175 Chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, QC, H3T 1C5, Canada

    Sébastien Perreault

Authors
  1. Sarah Zakaib Rassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luis H. Ospina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ariane Bochereau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yvan Samson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sébastien Perreault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dave Saint-Amour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dave Saint-Amour.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Statement of human rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statement on the welfare of animals

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rassi, S.Z., Ospina, L.H., Bochereau, A. et al. Central and peripheral steady-state visual evoked potentials in children with optic pathway gliomas. Doc Ophthalmol 139, 137–149 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-019-09703-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-019-09703-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation