分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
临床研究
常规MRI阴性癫痫儿童双侧丘脑的GluCEST成像和结构改变
王文 夏淑媛 李祥林 徐东昊 刘泉源 任庆发 殷志杰 王静 刘新凯

本文引用格式:王文, 夏淑媛, 李祥林, 等. 常规MRI阴性癫痫儿童双侧丘脑的GluCEST成像和结构改变[J]. 磁共振成像, 2026, 17(7): 1-8. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.07.001.


[摘要] 目的 使用谷氨酸化学交换饱和转移(glutamate-weighted chemical exchange saturation transfer, GluCEST)成像评估MRI阴性癫痫儿童丘脑谷氨酸(glutamate, Glu)的改变,并进一步探讨癫痫儿童丘脑亚区体积的变化,分析GluCEST测量的Glu变化与丘脑亚区体积之间的相关性。材料与方法 前瞻性纳入2024年1月至2026年5月期间就诊于滨州医学院附属医院儿童神经内科门诊及收治入院确诊为MRI阴性(即常规MRI扫描未见结构性异常)癫痫儿童73例,分为局灶性癫痫(focal epilepsy, FE)组37例和全面性癫痫(generalized epilepsy, GE)组36例,招募健康对照(healthy controls, HCs)组36例,采集三组被试的颅脑磁共振图像,排除有脑部疾病的被试后进行三维T1加权磁化制备快速梯度回波(magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo, MPRAGE)成像和GluCEST成像。用Matlab软件处理GluCEST图像得到丘脑区的磁化传递比不对称(asymmetric magnetization rate, MTRasym)值,代表此区域的Glu相对浓度值;用FreeSurfer自动分割MPRAGE图像获得丘脑亚区体积。利用SPSS软件对三组左右丘脑的MTRasym值进行比较,并对GE组与HCs组、FE组与HCs组丘脑MTRasym值及亚区体积进行比较。结果 FE组同侧丘脑的MTRasym值高于对侧丘脑的MTRasym值,差异具有统计学意义(t=3.252,P=0.002);GE组左侧(Z=-4.944,P<0.001)及右侧(t=4.816,P<0.001)丘脑的MTRasym值高于HCs组,差异具有统计学意义;FE组同侧丘脑的MTRasym值高于HCs组,差异具有统计学意义(t=4.547,P<0.001);FE组对侧丘脑的MTRasym值高于HCs组,差异具有统计学意义(t=3.293,P=0.002)。在丘脑亚区体积方面,GE组右侧内侧核体积小于HCs组,差异具有统计学意义(t=-2.667,P=0.009);FE组丘脑亚区与HCs组差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。GE组和FE组丘脑的MTRasym值与丘脑亚区的体积无相关性(P>0.05)。结论 本研究通过GluCEST成像技术及结构成像探索了MRI阴性癫痫儿童丘脑Glu及体积的变化,并研究了MTRasym值与丘脑亚区体积的相关性,有助于理解不同类型癫痫的神经代谢差异,为儿童癫痫患者的诊疗及预后开辟新的视角,GluCEST技术有望为儿童癫痫的病理生理机制探索提供一种新的、无创的成像工具。
[Abstract] Objective The glutamate-weighted chemical exchange saturation transfer (GluCEST) imaging technique was used to evaluate the changes of glutamate (Glu) in the thalamus of children with negative MRI - confirmed epilepsy. Furthermore, the volume changes of the subregions of the thalamus in these children were explored, and the correlation between the Glu changes measured by GluCEST and the volume of the thalamic subregions was analyzed.Materials and Methods A total of 73 pediatric patients diagnosed with epilepsy were prospectively enrolled between January 2024 and May 2026 at the Department of Pediatric Neurology, Binzhou Medical University Hospital. They were divided into the focal epilepsy (FE) group with 37 cases and the generalized epilepsy (GE) group with 36 cases. Thirty-six healthy control (HCs) subjects were recruited. The brain magnetic resonance images of the three groups were collected to exclude data with brain diseases. Those meeting the requirements were subjected to three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE) imaging and GluCEST imaging. The GluCEST images were processed using Matlab software to obtain the asymmetric magnetization rate (MTRasym) value of the thalamus region, representing the relative Glu concentration value of this area; the MPRAGE images were automatically segmented using FreeSurfer to obtain the volume of the thalamic subregions. SPSS was used to compare the MTRasym values of the left and right thalamus in the three groups, and to compare the thalamic MTRasym values and subregion volumes between the GE group and the HCs group, as well as between the FE group and the HCs group.Results The MTRasym value of the ipsilateral thalamus in the focal epilepsy (FE) group was significantly higher than that of the contralateral thalamus, with a statistically significant difference (t = 3.252, P = 0.002). In the generalized epilepsy (GE) group, both the left (Z = -4.944, P < 0.001) and right (t = 4.816, P < 0.001) thalamic MTRasym values were significantly elevated compared to those in the healthy control (HC) group. Similarly, both the ipsilateral (t = 4.547, P < 0.001) and contralateral (t = 3.293, P = 0.002) thalamic MTRasym values in the FE group were significantly higher than those in the HC group. Regarding thalamic subregion volumes, the volume of the right medial nucleus in the GE group was significantly smaller than that in the HC group (t = -2.667, P = 0.009); however, no significant differences were observed between the FE group and the HC group in any thalamic subregion (P > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant correlation was found between thalamic MTRasym values and the volumes of thalamic subregions in either the GE or FE groups (P > 0.05).Conclusions This study employed GluCEST imaging in conjunction with structural MRI to investigate glutamate concentration and volumetric alterations in the thalamus among children with epilepsy and negative conventional MRI findings. Furthermore, the correlation between MTRasym values and the volumes of specific thalamic subregions was examined. It is helpful to understand the neuro-metabolic differences of different types of epilepsy, and it opens up a new perspective for the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of children with epilepsy. GluCEST technology is expected to provide a new, non-invasive imaging tool for exploring the pathophysiological mechanism of childhood epilepsy.
[关键词] 癫痫;儿童;谷氨酸化学交换饱和转移;磁共振成像;丘脑;谷氨酸
[Keywords] epilepsy;Children;glutamate chemical exchange saturation transfer;magnetic resonance imaging;thalamus;glutamate

王文 1   夏淑媛 1   李祥林 2   徐东昊 3   刘泉源 1   任庆发 1   殷志杰 1   王静 1   刘新凯 1*  

1 滨州医学院附属医院放射科,滨州 256600

2 滨州医学院医学影像学院,烟台264003

3 胜利油田中心医院放射科,东营 257100

通信作者:刘新凯,E-mail: 104158000@qq.com

作者贡献声明::刘新凯设计本研究的方案,对稿件的重要内容进行了修改;王文参与选题和设计,起草和撰写稿件,获取、分析、解释本研究的文献;夏淑媛、李祥林、徐东昊、刘泉源、任庆发、殷志杰、王静获取、分析本研究的文献,对稿件重要内容进行了修改,其中李祥林获得了国家自然科学基金项目和山东省重点研发计划项目的资助;全体作者都同意发表最后的修改稿,同意对本研究的所有方面负责,确保本研究的准确性和诚信。


基金项目: 国家自然科学基金项目 62176181 山东省重点研发计划项目 2018YFJH0501
收稿日期:2026-01-21
接受日期:2026-04-21
中图分类号:R445.2  R742.1 
文献标识码:A
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.07.001
本文引用格式:王文, 夏淑媛, 李祥林, 等. 常规MRI阴性癫痫儿童双侧丘脑的GluCEST成像和结构改变[J]. 磁共振成像, 2026, 17(7): 1-8. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.07.001.

0 引言

       癫痫是一种由脑神经元异常放电引起的最常见的慢性神经系统疾病,其核心临床表现为反复出现的癫痫发作,即大脑神经元高度同步化异常放电所导致的一过性功能障碍,可表现为运动、感觉、意识、精神、行为或自主神经等方面的异常[1],影响全球所有年龄段人群,年龄标准化患病率约为658/10万,造成社会和家庭负担加重[2, 3]。儿童是癫痫发作的多发人群[4],男性癫痫发病率均略高于女性,局灶性癫痫(focal epilepsy, FE)发作比全面性癫痫(generalized epilepsy, GE)发作更常见[5]。儿童癫痫具有不同的潜在病因、临床表现、严重程度和预后,并伴有很高的精神共患病率[6]。然而,常规MRI检查难以发现儿童癫痫的异常表现,大部分癫痫儿童在接受包括T1加权成像、T2加权成像及液体衰减反转恢复序列在内的标准化MRI扫描后,由经验丰富的神经放射科医师判读,仍未能识别出可导致癫痫发作的明确结构性病灶(即“MRI阴性”)MRI检查结果为阴性,为探寻癫痫的潜在病因和制订个体化的精准治疗方案带来了挑战。

       谷氨酸(glutamate, Glu)是中枢神经系统中具有兴奋作用的主要神经递质之一,能在星形胶质细胞和胶质细胞中实现快速信号传递,在癫痫发病中起着至关重要的作用[7]。癫痫患者神经元活动异常兴奋,有氧糖酵解增加,生成的葡萄糖作为三磷酸腺苷的底物,是神经递质Glu的代谢前体,当γ-氨基丁酸(gamma-aminobutyric acid, GABA)和Glu之间的平衡被破坏[8],细胞外Glu水平升高或Glu清除率降低就会导致癫痫发作[9],而癫痫发作亦会导致Glu浓度升高,Glu浓度异常又是诱发和维持癫痫发作的关键因素,两者构成了一个恶性循环。目前,MRI是诊断癫痫的重要方法,但对于MRI阴性儿童来说,常规MRI技术难以发现其大脑异常改变,亟需更为先进的磁共振检查技术来进行诊断。

       目前,氢质子磁共振波谱(1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy, 1H-MRS)是检测人类Glu最常用的无创工具[10],然而,1H-MRS的灵敏度比较低,空间分辨率有限,并且容易受到磁场和外像素信号的影响,因此估计Glu浓度的准确性难以保证[11]。谷氨酸化学交换饱和转移(glutamate-weighted chemical exchange saturation transfer, GluCEST)是一种新型分子成像方法,通过磁共振信号以及图像在空间中任意特定点的强度来反映Glu的分布[12],有研究证实3.0 T GluCEST信号与通过1H MRS检测到的Glu与肌酸比值呈正相关,一项体外实验表明,在生理条件下,GluCEST值与Glu浓度呈线性相关[13]。目前,该技术已被应用于多种神经系统疾病[13, 14],并在内侧颞叶癫痫发作灶侧化的研究中具有重要意义[15, 16, 17],这些证据支持了我们在3.0 T场强下使用GluCEST进行Glu定量研究的可行性,进一步扩大了在癫痫领域的研究。

       丘脑是癫痫神经网络中的关键枢纽,参与癫痫的发作、传播等重要环节[18]。通过深部脑刺激评估人类临界中心体记录发现丘脑具有其自身的致痫潜能[19]。研究发现,癫痫发作与丘脑亚区体积改变有关,比如左侧局灶性癫痫丘脑萎缩主要发生在同侧丘脑前部[20],癫痫患者丘脑结构改变将导致神经胶质功能障碍,引起神经元-神经胶质循环率降低,导致癫痫的发生[21],这一发现提示,丘脑体积的异常可能是癫痫易感性的形态学标记,体积改变可能反映了丘脑内神经元-神经胶质网络的结构性重排或电生理特性的改变,这些改变足以影响丘脑作为癫痫神经网络枢纽的功能。如果能够通过MRI来研究这一病理生理机制的真实性,将会对癫痫患者的早期诊断、治疗及预后提供帮助。

       因此,本研究中,我们将使用GluCEST成像来重点评估MRI阴性癫痫儿童丘脑Glu的改变,并进一步探讨癫痫儿童丘脑亚区体积的变化,分析GluCEST测量的Glu变化与丘脑亚区体积之间的相关性。

1 材料与方法

1.1 研究对象

       前瞻性纳入2024年1月至2026年5月期间就诊于滨州医学院附属医院儿童神经内科门诊及收治入院确诊为癫痫的儿童73例。参照2025年国际抗癫痫联盟(International League Against Epilepsy, ILAE)癫痫发作分类标准,由儿科神经科医生参考患者的发作症状,并根据长程视频脑电图的记录和癫痫发作符号学,结合发作期脑电图,将发作间期单侧癫痫样放电的癫痫患者纳入FE组,有癫痫样放电的一侧为同侧,另一侧为对侧;广泛双侧同步癫痫样放电的癫痫患者纳入GE组。为简化分析并与FE组数据进行比较,我们将HCs双侧丘脑的测量值进行平均,得到一个代表该个体丘脑整体特征的单一数值。

       癫痫儿童纳入标准:(1)根据2025年ILAE诊断标准确诊癫痫[22];(2)5~13岁;(3)长期视频脑电检测到癫痫样放电;(4)无并发神经系统合并症,无肿瘤及颅脑外伤史;(5)常规头颅MRI扫描未见明确结构性异常;(6)在癫痫发作后48小时内进行MRI扫描。癫痫的进展和患者的病史以及其他临床信息由患者的主治医生提供。排除标准:(1)无完整临床资料者;(2)图像不符合要求,如依从性差导致运动伪影等。

       招募性别、年龄相匹配的体检儿童36例作为健康对照(healthy controls, HCs)组。纳入标准:(1)无发育或神经障碍史;(2)无癫痫、神经外科手术史、颅脑损伤史、中枢神经系统感染史、脑血管意外或围产期脑损伤;(3)常规头颅MRI扫描未见异常。排除标准:(1)无完整临床资料者;(2)图像不符合要求,如依从性差导致运动伪影等。

       所有儿童受试者都是右利手,均未使用镇静药物,所有入组患儿均在扫描前维持其常规抗癫痫药物治疗方案,未在扫描前刻意调整或停药,并在MRI研究期间使用降噪耳机和隔音海绵来保护和约束所有参与者。本研究遵守《赫尔辛基宣言》,并得到滨州医学院伦理委员会的批准,所有儿童家长在详细了解本研究后均签署了书面知情同意书,批准文号:伦研批第(2023-401)号。

1.2 MRI数据采集

       MRI数据采集使用3.0 T全身MAGNETOM Skyra系统(Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany),配备20通道相控阵头颈线圈。为排除脑部疾病及结构异常,采用平面内分辨率更高的2D冠状面T2加权成像及高分辨率3D T2加权液体衰减反转恢复序列成像,由2位具有10年以上影像学经验的诊断医师排除有脑部疾病及结构异常的患儿。获得三维T1加权磁化准备快速梯度回波成像(three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo, 3D T1 MPRAGE)成像(TR 1680 ms,TE 2.29 ms,FA 90°,FOV 240 mm×240 mm,矩阵256×256,层厚0.94 mm,体素大小0.9 mm×0.9 mm),用于丘脑GluCEST感兴趣区定位和计算丘脑亚区体积。通过西门子Syngo工作站后处理,对T1-MPRAGE数据进行三维重建,平行于丘脑最大水平,倾斜角度并尽量远离侧脑室额角,生成丘脑斜轴位图像,并选择与该水平平行,围绕双侧丘脑最大区域的单侧切面进行GluCEST成像。使用二维涡轮自旋回波序列获取GluCEST数据,参数为FOV 21.2 cm×18.6 cm,矩阵182×128,涡轮系数128,层厚5 mm,TR 4000 ms,TE 7.5 ms,射频饱和功率3 μT,Z谱包含54个频率偏移,范围从-6到+6 ppm,在正偏移和负偏移之间交错。儿童癫痫患者在癫痫发作后48小时内进行MRI扫描,MRI扫描总时间不超过30分钟。

       所有MRI图像均由具有10年以上工作经验的放射科医师评估确认。常规结构MRI未发现异常的患者定义为MRI阴性。此外,由于运动伪影,T1-MPRAGE和GluCEST图像不清晰的病例被排除在外。

1.3 GluCEST图像处理

       使用MATLAB(Mathworks,Natick,MA,美国,2016b)中自定义编写的脚本处理GluCEST图像。首先,通过非饱和参考图像在不同频率偏移下对所有图像进行归一化,获得GluCEST Z光谱,然后使用12阶多项式对Z谱数据进行体素拟合,以解决空间B0不均匀性问题[14, 23]。通过磁化传递比不对称(asymmetric magnetization rate, MTRasym)值分析计算3.0 ppm处的非对称性磁化率值,得到勾画区域的Glu相对浓度值。Glu浓度计算见公式(1):

       其中Δω为频率偏移,S0为不饱和信号强度。为保证GluCEST测定结果的准确性,本研究采用盲法设计,由从事影像诊断专业10年以上的两位副主任医师分别在丘脑区仔细绘制ROI,绘制解剖边界严格遵循解剖标志,尽量避开丘脑周围血管、脑脊液区域及可能产生混淆或部分容积效应的其他脑组织结构,每侧重复测量三次,并取其平均值,最终计算出的MTRasym值代表了人工勾勒出的丘脑体内相对Glu浓度(图1)。

图1  丘脑感兴趣区(左:B0图;右:GluCEST图)。伪彩图中颜色越接近红色代表数值越高。GluCEST:谷氨酸化学交换饱和转移。
Fig. 1  Thalamic region of interest (left: B0 image; right: GluCEST image). In the pseudo-color image, the closer the color is to red, the higher the value. GluCEST: glutamate-weighted chemical exchange saturation transfer.

1.4 丘脑亚区分割

       T1-MPRAGE图像使用标准FreeSurfer分析流程进行预处理。预处理步骤包括运动校正、非均匀强度标准化、Talairach变换计算、颅骨去除和颈部去除。然后重建整个丘脑和邻近皮质下区域,使用“recon-all”脚本自动分割丘脑。将丘脑分为5个亚区:前核、外侧核、腹核、内侧核、丘脑枕。计算属于同一个亚区的核的总和来推导每个亚区的体积[24]

1.5 样本量估算

       本研究为探索性研究,样本量估算基于前期预试验数据。设定双侧检验水准α=0.05,检验把握度(1-β)=0.8,效应量d=0.6(根据预实验组间GluCEST值差异估算),使用G*Power软件计算,每组至少需要36例。

1.6 统计学分析

       使用SPSS 26.0统计软件分析数据,GraphPad Prism 8.0软件绘制图表。首先,对所有计数资料进行正态性检验,若符合正态分布,计量资料以均数±标准差表示,并进行方差齐性检验,方差齐选用独立样本t检验;方差不齐则选用Welch's t检验。若不符合正态分布,计量资料以中位数及四分位间距表示,选用Mann-Whitney U检验。对所有分类变量进行卡方检验,当期望频数<5时使用Fisher's精确检验。对年龄进行Kruskal-Wallis H检验。采用组内相关系数(intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC)检验两位测量者对双侧丘脑MTRasym值测量结果的一致性。检验FE组及HCs组组内左右丘脑Glu浓度的比较采用配对样本t检验;GE组组内左右丘脑Glu浓度的比较采用Wilcoxon符号秩和检验。探讨GluCEST测量的Glu变化与丘脑亚区体积的相关性采用Spearman相关性分析。P<0.05表示差异有统计学意义。

2 结果

2.1 人口统计学资料

       本研究初筛共收集癫痫儿童104例和HCs组58例。根据既定的纳入与排除标准,因MRI运动伪影、临床资料不足等因素排除31例;HCs组因MRI运动伪影排除22例。最终共纳入73例儿童癫痫患者,其中GE组36例及FE组37例;纳入HCs组36例。GE组与HCs组、FE组与HCs组在年龄及性别上差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。其他临床信息详见表1

表1  癫痫儿童和健康对照组的临床资料
Tab.1  Clinical data of children with epilepsy and healthy controls

2.2 GluCEST 数据分析

       一致性检验结果显示,两位测量者对右侧丘脑及左侧丘脑MTRasym值测量的ICC值均大于0.75,表明具有良好的一致性,详见表2。GE组左[1.734(1.688,1.873)]、右(1.753±0.173)侧丘脑的MTRasym值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);HCs组左(1.573±0.089)、右(1.594±0.089)侧丘脑的MTRasym值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);FE组同侧丘脑的MTRasym值(1.752±0.207)高于对侧丘脑(1.700±0.195),差异具有统计学意义(P=0.002)。GE组左侧及右侧丘脑的MTRasym值高于HCs组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.001);FE组同侧丘脑的MTRasym值高于HCs组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.001);FE组对侧丘脑的MTRasym值高于HCs组,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.002)。详见图2~图3表3, 表4

图2  儿童癫痫患者与健康对照组的GluCEST成像示例图。2A:健康对照组GluCEST伪彩图;2B:左侧局灶性癫痫GluCEST伪彩图;2C:右侧局灶性癫痫GluCEST伪彩图;2D:全面性癫痫GluCEST伪彩图。伪彩图中颜色越接近红色代表数值越高。GluCEST:谷氨酸化学交换饱和转移。
Fig. 2  Example GluCEST maps in pediatric epilepsy children and HCs group. 2A: Pseudo-color plots of GluCEST in the healthy control group; 2B: Pseudo-color plots of GluCEST in left focal epilepsy; 2C: Pseudo-color plots of GluCEST in right focal epilepsy; 2D: Pseudo-color plots of GluCEST in generalized epilepsy. In the pseudo-color image, the closer the color is to red, the higher the value. GluCEST: glutamate-weighted chemical exchange saturation transfer.
图3  HCs 组、GE 组与FE 组的MTRasym值对比图。3A:HCs 组左右丘脑MTRasym 值的比较;3B:GE 组和HCs 组右侧丘脑MTRasym 值的比较;3C:GE 组和HCs 组左侧丘脑MTRasym 值的比较;3D:FE 组同侧和对侧丘脑MTRasym 值的比较;3E:FE 组和HCs 组同侧丘脑MTRasym值的比较;3F:FE 组和HCs 组对侧丘脑MTRasym值的比较。HCs:健康对照;GE:全面性癫痫;FE:局灶性癫痫;MTRasym:磁化传递比不对称。
Fig. 3  The MTRasym values of the HCs group, GE group and FE group. 3A: Comparison of the MTRasym values of the left and right thalamus in the HCs group; 3B: Comparison of the MTRasym values of the right thalamus in the GE group and the HCs group; 3C: Comparison of the MTRasym values of the left thalamus in the GE group and the HCs group; 3D: Comparison of the MTRasym values of the ipsilateral and contralateral thalamus in the FE group; 3E: Comparison of the MTRasym values of the ipsilateral thalamus in the FE group and the HCs group; 3F: Comparison of the MTRasym values of the contralateral thalamus in the FE group and the HCs group. HCs: healthy controls; GE: generalized epilepsy; FE: focal epilepsy; MTRasym: asymmetric magnetization rate.
表2  双侧丘脑MTRasym值测量者间一致性分析
Tab. 2  Inter-rater reliability analysis of bilateral thalamic MTRasym measurements
表3  GE组、FE组及HCs组双侧丘脑MTRasym值的比较
Tab. 3  Comparison of MTRasym values in bilateral thalamus among the GE group, FE group and HCs group
表4  GE组与HCs组、FE组与HCs组双侧丘脑MTRasym值的比较
Tab. 4  Comparison of bilateral thalamic MTRasym values between the GE group and the HCs group, as well as between the FE group and the HCs group

2.3 丘脑亚区体积的分析

       GE组右侧内侧核体积小于HCs组,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.009);与HCs组比较,GE组双侧前核、外侧核、腹核、丘脑枕及左侧内侧核体积差异均无统计学意义;FE组5个丘脑亚区与HCs组体积差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),详见表5

表5  GE组与HCs组、FE组与HCs组双侧丘脑亚区体积的比较
Tab. 5  Comparison of the bilateral thalamic subfield volumes between the GE group and the HCs group, as well as between the FE group and the HCs group

2.4 Glu浓度与丘脑亚区体积的相关性分析

       GE组MTRasym值与丘脑亚区体积的相关性分析见表6左侧部分,FE组MTRasym值与丘脑亚区体积的相关性分析见右侧部分。结果显示GE组和FE组与丘脑亚区的体积均无相关性(P>0.05)。

表6  MRI阴性儿童癫痫患者丘脑亚区体积与MTRasym值的相关性
Tab. 6  Correlation between thalamus subfield volumes and MTRasym values in MRI-negative pediatric epilepsy patients

3 讨论

       本研究通过GluCEST成像技术及结构成像探索MRI阴性癫痫儿童丘脑Glu及体积的变化,并探索MTRasym值与丘脑亚区体积的相关性。结果显示FE患者对侧丘脑Glu浓度低于同侧,GE和FE患者双侧丘脑Glu浓度均高于HCs,GE患者的右侧内侧核体积小于HCs,但是儿童癫痫丘脑Glu浓度与丘脑亚区体积无相关性。这些结果表明GluCEST成像技术在MRI阴性癫痫儿童丘脑Glu浓度评估中具有较大的潜力。

3.1 GluCEST成像技术检测Glu浓度的优势

       GluCEST成像技术是一项可无创检测大脑Glu浓度的新型技术,可以提供高分辨率的代谢成像,部分体积效应和周围结构污染最小化[25],虽然1H-MRS可以提供有关体内生物过程的丰富而具体的信息,但它需要大的体素,缺乏空间分辨率,这对于研究小的或异质的结构有一定的局限性[11]。在GluCEST等高级成像技术出现之前,获取脑内Glu浓度的“金标准”依赖于侵入性方法,如微透析、脑脊液分析等[26],这些侵入性方法在应用于成人患者时已受到极大限制,而在儿童患者群体中则面临着几乎不可逾越的障碍。目前GluCEST成像技术在多种大脑疾病中被用来检测Glu的浓度[27, 28, 29],而儿童癫痫的病因多样、临床表现各异,最新的证据表明丘脑具有主动的兴奋性功能,癫痫发作后,丘脑Glu能神经元的活性标志物显著升高[30],持续的Glu兴奋性毒性是癫痫相关认知损害的重要原因之一。

3.2 癫痫儿童丘脑Glu浓度变化机制及临床意义

       本研究结果癫痫儿童(GE与FE患者)丘脑Glu浓度均显著升高,提示了丘脑在癫痫网络中的核心代谢角色。癫痫发作期间,大脑对能量的需求显著增加,导致糖酵解过程加速,随着糖酵解的增加,Glu作为代谢中间产物,是蛋白质和核苷酸合成的前体,同时也是主要的兴奋性神经递质[31],其浓度在神经细胞内积累,降低了神经网络的阈值,容易诱发并维持癫痫发作。针对丘脑的靶向治疗,丘脑核的刺激可以通过调节局部的代谢状态(降低Glu浓度)来抑制癫痫的泛化传播[32]。另外,丘脑作为大脑的关键中枢,局部的异常放电可通过海马-丘脑-额叶皮层回路传导,丘脑内Glu的升高增强了该回路的兴奋性,使得异常放电更容易被“接收”和放大[33],皮层内的神经元可产生同步的高频放电,通过丘脑投射束将信号同步传递至双侧皮层,从环路机制解释了癫痫儿童单侧皮层的高代谢水平,能迅速引发全脑意识丧失和全身抽搐。本研究FE组同侧丘脑MTRasym值显著高于HCs,对侧丘脑也显著高于HCs,对侧改变不及同侧显著,提示癫痫灶所在半球的丘脑可能存在功能性过度激活,MTRasym值升高通常与组织酸中毒、代谢改变或细胞内蛋白/肽含量增加有关[34],同侧丘脑可能因癫痫灶的反复放电而出现代谢性应激。对侧改变虽不及同侧显著,可能FE病灶通过丘脑-皮层环路,导致弥散性的双侧丘脑代谢或功能改变[35],提示了癫痫是一种全脑性疾病,而非单纯局部病变。GE组表现出双侧丘脑MTRasym值升高,GE的特征是双侧同步放电,丘脑作为“双枢纽”结构与皮层共同生成癫痫网络,其代谢改变更为显著[36],双侧丘脑MTRasym值对称性的升高,可能是区分GE与FE的一个影像学标志。Glu的高浓度不仅是代谢激活的产物,更是丘脑核同步放电阈值降低的关键因素,进一步深化了我们对癫痫发作机制的理解,也为临床上利用代谢影像学进行个体化诊疗提供了坚实的理论基础。

3.3 癫痫儿童丘脑体积的变化及其与Glu浓度变化的相关性

       首先,本研究中GE患者表现出显著的右侧内侧核体积减小,内侧核是丘脑皮层投射系统的核心枢纽,而丘脑-皮层环路是产生同步化异常放电的核心病理生理基础,直接调控着觉醒与意识水平[36],参与意识和高级认知功能[37]。研究表明背内侧核是尖波-慢波放电的核心枢纽之一,它可能作为发作的“发电站”,向全脑发送同步信号,长时间反复的双侧同步放电导致代谢负荷过重,造成该区域神经元损伤或凋亡[38],导致背内侧核体积缩小。研究发现GE患者丘脑内侧核灰质体积显著低于健康对照组,而其他亚区无显著差异[39],CHEN等[40]的研究也证实了GE患者的右侧丘脑背内侧核体积减小最为显著,其他亚区如腹核虽有改变,但在统计学上不如背内侧核显著,与本研究结果相近。另外内侧核与额叶前额皮层等特定脑区的连接性改变呈侧化分布[41],可能存在潜在的结构性侧化倾向,这种功能改变可能先于结构改变。而且癫痫发作期间的血流改变可能在右侧更显著,导致局部缺氧加重损伤[42]。这提示,丘脑右侧内侧核的结构或功能完整性受损,可能直接影响其维持正常觉醒和注意网络的能力,从不同角度解释了GE患者右侧内侧核体积减小的原因,而右侧的优势可能源于GE病理网络对右侧注意/觉醒系统的不对称影响,使得右侧丘脑内侧核承受了更大的异常活动负荷。其次,FE患者丘脑亚区与HCs比较无显著差异,可能由于在疾病早期或发作控制良好,丘脑尚未发生可检测的宏观萎缩[43]。最后,本研究发现癫痫儿童丘脑体积的变化与Glu浓度的变化没有显著的相关性,表明代谢异常不一定伴随结构变化,二者可能受不同病理机制影响[44],Glu水平的变化更敏感于突触活动和代谢状态[45],但不一定与丘脑体积变化同步。因此,丘脑体积改变与Glu代谢之间可能存在平行或独立的致痫机制。

       最后,本研究是一项探索性分析,其主要目的是识别潜在的代谢物差异模式以生成研究假设,而非严格地验证特定假设。虽已匹配年龄与性别,但受限于儿童癫痫临床数据搜集的固有挑战,在儿童癫痫群体中,临床病史的精确量化尤为困难,家长的回顾性报告可能无法精确反映发作频率,尤其是对于非惊厥性发作或夜间发作[46],若将其纳入模型,反而可能引入噪声而非有效控制混杂;另外,所有入组患儿在MRI扫描时均维持其常规抗癫痫药物治疗方案,这一设计虽然保证了扫描期间患儿的临床状况稳定并符合伦理要求,但也意味着我们观察到的GluCEST信号是在药物作用下的综合反映,而且儿童期的抗癫痫药物治疗方案往往复杂且动态变化迅速,药物类型、剂量、联合用药情况以及治疗反应随时间频繁调整,难以准确量化整个疾病过程中的“药物负荷”累积效应。所以未能将癫痫病程、近期发作频率及抗癫痫药物详情等变量作为协变量纳入核心模型进行统计控制。

3.4 局限性与未来展望

       本研究尚存在一些不足。全面性癫痫儿童临床病例较少,磁共振采集过程中配合度相对欠佳,所以样本量相对较少;未进行癫痫亚组分型,阻碍了对癫痫亚型之间研究变量差异的全面理解;且该研究为单中心研究,可能存在选择偏倚;针对3.0 T场强中CEST效应较弱的问题,本研究未同时进行MRS验证;该研究GluCEST技术采用单层2D采集,无法获取全丘脑的CEST数据。未来将扩大样本量,进行多中心、多模态研究,并进行亚组分型,通过标准化的发作日记、详尽的药物治疗史记录乃至药物血药浓度监测,来更精确地表征临床维度的纵向研究。儿童癫痫患者的依从性问题使得完成多序列采集并确保图像质量变得具有挑战性,静音序列及采集时间的缩短将成为数据采集的可靠保证。

4 结论

       本研究将GluCEST成像技术应用于常规MRI阴性的儿童癫痫患者,为理解此类儿童癫痫的潜在神经代谢病理机制提供了直接证据;早期检测到Glu的变化,在结构有改变之前就控制癫痫进展,为儿童癫痫患者的诊疗及预后开辟新的视角;GluCEST技术作为一种无创的活体代谢成像工具,未来有望辅助癫痫的亚型分型、预后评估,为儿童癫痫的病理生理机制探索提供一种新的、无创的成像工具。

[1]
RINEY K, BOGACZ A, SOMERVILLE E, et al. International League Against Epilepsy classification and definition of epilepsy syndromes with onset at a variable age: position statement by the ILAE Task Force on Nosology and Definitions[J]. Epilepsia, 2022, 63(6): 1443-1474. DOI: 10.1111/epi.17240.
[2]
COLLABORATORS G B D E. Global, regional, and national burden of epilepsy, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021[J/OL]. Lancet Public Health, 2025, 10(3): e203-e227 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00302-5. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00302-5.
[3]
ASADI-POOYA A A, BRIGO F, LATTANZI S, et al. Adult epilepsy[J]. Lancet, 2023, 402(10399): 412-424. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01048-6.
[4]
ROZENSZTRAUCH A, KOLTUNIUK A. The Quality of Life of Children with Epilepsy and the Impact of the Disease on the Family Functioning[J/OL]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022, 19(4): 2277 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042277. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042277.
[5]
BEGHI E. The Epidemiology of Epilepsy[J]. Neuroepidemiology, 2020, 54(2): 185-191. DOI: 10.1159/000503831.
[6]
YILDIZ MINIKSAR D, KILIC B, KILIC M, et al. Evaluation of suicide probability in children and adolescents with epilepsy[J/OL]. Pediatr Int, 2022, 64(1): e15130[2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1111/ped.15130. DOI: 10.1111/ped.15130.
[7]
CHEN T S, HUANG T H, LAI M C, et al. The Role of Glutamate Receptors in Epilepsy[J/OL]. Biomedicines, 2023, 11(3): 783 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11030783. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11030783.
[8]
ALCOREZA O B, PATEL D C, TEWARI B P, et al. Dysregulation of Ambient Glutamate and Glutamate Receptors in Epilepsy: An Astrocytic Perspective[J/OL]. Front Neurol, 2021, 12: 652159 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.652159. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.652159.
[9]
NEGRETE-DIAZ J V, FALCON-MOYA R, RODRIGUEZ-MORENO A. Kainate receptors: from synaptic activity to disease[J]. FEBS J, 2022, 289(17): 5074-5088. DOI: 10.1111/febs.16081.
[10]
KANTROWITZ J T, DONG Z, MILAK M S, et al. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex/anterior cingulate cortex Glx, glutamate, and GABA levels in medication-free major depressive disorder[J/OL]. Transl Psychiatry, 2021, 11(1): 419 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01541-1. DOI: 10.1038/s41398-021-01541-1.
[11]
PEPIN J, DE LONGPREZ L, TROVERO F, et al. Complementarity of gluCEST and (1)H-MRS for the study of mouse models of Huntington's disease[J/OL]. NMR Biomed, 2020, 33(7): e4301[2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4301. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.4301.
[12]
CEMBER A T J, DECK B L, KELKAR A, et al. Glutamate-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (GluCEST) Detects Effects of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to the Motor Cortex[J/OL]. Neuroimage, 2022, 256: 119191 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119191. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119191.
[13]
CAI K, HARIS M, SINGH A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of glutamate[J]. Nat Med, 2012, 18(2): 302-306. DOI: 10.1038/nm.2615.
[14]
REN Q, WAN B, LUO X, et al. Glutamate alterations in the premature infant brain during different gestational ages with glutamate chemical exchange saturation transfer imaging: a pilot study[J]. Eur Radiol, 2023, 33(6): 4214-4222. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-09374-2.
[15]
WANG K, WEN Q, WU D, et al. Lateralization of temporal lobe epileptic foci with automated chemical exchange saturation transfer measurements at 3 Tesla[J/OL]. EBioMedicine, 2023, 89: 104460 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104460. DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104460.
[16]
段小玲, 刘镇业, 杨超, 等. 基于多模态MRI的海马头谷氨酸兴奋毒性与结构萎缩联合无创定侧难治性颞叶癫痫[J]. 磁共振成像, 2025, 16(12): 52-58. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2025.12.008.
DUAN X L, LIU Z Y, YANG C, et al. Combined non-invasive lateralization of hippocampal head glutamate excitotoxicity and structural atrophy for refractory temporal lobe epilepsy based on multimodal MRI[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2025, 16(12): 52-58. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2025.12.008.
[17]
XU D, REN Q, LIU Q, et al. Hippocampal Glutamate Levels and Their Correlation With Subregion Volume in School‐Aged Children With MRI‐Negative Epilepsy: A Preliminary Study[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024, 61(3): 1258-1268. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.29514.
[18]
WU T Q, KABOODVAND N, MCGINN R J, et al. Multisite thalamic recordings to characterize seizure propagation in the human brain[J]. Brain, 2023, 146(7): 2792-2802. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awad121.
[19]
MARTIN-LOPEZ D, JIMENEZ-JIMENEZ D, CABANES-MARTINEZ L, et al. The Role of Thalamus Versus Cortex in Epilepsy: Evidence from Human Ictal Centromedian Recordings in Patients Assessed for Deep Brain Stimulation[J/OL]. Int J Neural Syst, 2017, 27(7): 1750010 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129065717500101. DOI: 10.1142/S0129065717500101.
[20]
LUCAS A, MOUCHTARIS S, TRANQUILLE A, et al. Mapping hippocampal and thalamic atrophy in epilepsy: A 7-T magnetic resonance imaging study[J]. Epilepsia, 2024, 65(4): 1092-1106. DOI: 10.1111/epi.17908.
[21]
TAKADO Y, TAKUWA H, SAMPEI K, et al. MRS-measured glutamate versus GABA reflects excitatory versus inhibitory neural activities in awake mice[J]. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2021, 42(1): 197-212. DOI: 10.1177/0271678X211045449.
[22]
BENICZKY S, TRINKA E, WIRRELL E, et al. Updated classification of epileptic seizures: Position paper of the International League Against Epilepsy[J]. Epilepsia, 2025, 66(6): 1804-1823. DOI: 10.1111/epi.18338.
[23]
LIU R, ZHANG H, QIAN Y, et al. Frequency‐stabilized chemical exchange saturation transfer imaging with real‐time free‐induction‐decay readout[J]. Magn Reson Med, 2020, 85(3): 1322-1334. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.28513.
[24]
WEELAND C J, VRIEND C, VAN DER WERF Y, et al. Thalamic Subregions and Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms in 2, 500 Children From the General Population[J]. J Am Acad Child Psy, 2022, 61(2): 321-330. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2021.05.024.
[25]
CEMBER A T J, NANGA R P R, REDDY R. Glutamate‐weighted CEST (gluCEST) imaging for mapping neurometabolism: An update on the state of the art and emerging findings from in vivo applications[J/OL]. NMR in Biomedicine, 2022, 36(6): e4780[2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4780. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.4780.
[26]
HERSHEY N D, POPOV P, OLIVER N M, et al. Detection of Neuronal Glutamate in Brain Extracellular Space In Vivo Using Microdialysis and Metabolic Labeling with Glutamine[J]. ACS Chem Neurosci, 2025, 16(17): 3398-3409. DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.5c00518.
[27]
LI H, LUO X, QI K, et al. Glutamate Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer (GluCEST) MRI to Evaluate the Rapid Antidepressant Effects of Ketamine in the Hippocampus of Rat Depression Model[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 59(4): 1373-1381. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28921.
[28]
SONI N D, SWAIN A, JUUL H, et al. Detection of sex-specific glutamate changes in subregions of hippocampus in an early-stage Alzheimer's disease mouse model using GluCEST MRI[J]. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 2024, 20(10): 7124-7137. DOI: 10.1002/alz.14190.
[29]
刘悦, 董麟瑞, 黄圣翔, 等. 磁共振化学交换饱和转移谷氨酸成像在精神分裂症中的应用[J]. 放射学实践, 2023, 38(7): 830-834. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2023.07.004.
LIU Y, DONG L R, HUANG S X, et al. Application of Magnetic Resonance Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer Glutamate Imaging in Schizophrenia[J]. Radiol Prac, 2023, 38(7): 830-834. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2023.07.004.
[30]
STUDTMANN C, LADISLAV M, TOPOLSKI M A, et al. NaV1.1 haploinsufficiency impairs glutamatergic and GABAergic neuron function in the thalamus[J/OL]. Neurobiology of Disease, 2022, 167: 105672 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2022.105672. DOI: 10.1016/j.nbd.2022.105672.
[31]
VEZZANI A, RAVIZZA T, BEDNER P, et al. Astrocytes in the initiation and progression of epilepsy[J]. Nat Rev Neurol, 2022, 18(12): 707-722. DOI: 10.1038/s41582-022-00727-5.
[32]
MOHANTY D, HOUCK K M, TRANDAFIR C, et al. Responsive neurostimulation of thalamic nuclei for regional and multifocal drug-resistant epilepsy in children and young adults[J]. JNS-Pediatrics, 2024, 34(1): 40-48. DOI: 10.3171/2024.2.PEDS23531.
[33]
GHEISARI F, SHAMMAS A, MARIE E, et al. Prognostic Values of Thalamic Metabolic Abnormalities in Children with Epilepsy[J/OL]. Diagnostics, 2025, 15(15): 1865 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15151865. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics15151865.
[34]
LU D, JI Y, SUNDARAM P, et al. Alkaline brain pH shift in rodent lithium-pilocarpine model of epilepsy with chronic seizures[J/OL]. Brain Res, 2021, 1758: 147345 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2021.147345. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2021.147345.
[35]
HE X, CHAITANYA G, ASMA B, et al. Disrupted basal ganglia–thalamocortical loops in focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures[J]. Brain, 2020, 143(1): 175-190. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awz361.
[36]
LINDQUIST B E, TIMBIE C, VOSKOBIYNYK Y, et al. Thalamocortical circuits in generalized epilepsy: Pathophysiologic mechanisms and therapeutic targets[J/OL]. Neurobiol Dis, 2023, 181: 106094 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2023.106094. DOI: 10.1016/j.nbd.2023.106094.
[37]
SANTUCCI F, JIMENEZ-MARIN A, GABRIELLI A, et al. Partial correlation as a tool for mapping functional-structural correspondence in human brain connectivity[J]. Netw Neurosci, 2025, 9(3): 1065-1086. DOI: 10.1162/NETN.a.22.
[38]
BERNASCONI A. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging of the thalamus in idiopathic generalized epilepsy[J]. Brain, 2003, 126(11): 2447-2454. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awg249.
[39]
ZANG Y F, WANG Z, ZHANG Z, et al. Impairments of Thalamic Nuclei in Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy Revealed by a Study Combining Morphological and Functional Connectivity MRI[J/OL]. PLoS ONE, 2012, 7(7): e39701[2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039701. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039701.
[40]
CHEN Y, FALLON N, KREILKAMP B A K, et al. Probabilistic mapping of thalamic nuclei and thalamocortical functional connectivity in idiopathic generalised epilepsy[J]. Hum Brain Mapp, 2021, 42(17): 5648-5664. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25644.
[41]
WANG Z, LARIVIèRE S, XU Q, et al. Community-informed connectomics of the thalamocortical system in generalized epilepsy[J/OL]. Neurology, 2019, 93(11): e1112-e1122 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000008096. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008096.
[42]
TOWNE J M, LAMI V, BARRON D S, et al. Neuroimaging signatures of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of structural and resting-state functional imaging literature[J/OL]. NeuroImage-Clin, 2025, 48: 103908 [2026-01-06]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2025.103908. DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2025.103908.
[43]
WHELAN C D, ALTMANN A, BOTIA J A, et al. Structural brain abnormalities in the common epilepsies assessed in a worldwide ENIGMA study[J]. Brain, 2018, 141(2): 391-408. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awx341.
[44]
LUCAS A, NANGA R P R, HADAR P, et al. Mapping hippocampal glutamate in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with glutamate weighted CEST (GluCEST) imaging[J]. Hum Brain Mapp, 2022, 44(2): 549-558. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.26083.
[45]
张馨月. 不同激活状态的小胶质细胞对潜在癫痫易感性-代谢型谷氨酸受体的影响[D].长春: 吉林大学, 2020. DOI: 10.27162/d.cnki.gjlin.2020.000537.
ZHANG X Y. The Effects of Different Activated Microglia on Potential Epileptic Suscptibility Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors[D]. Changchun: Jilin University, 2020. DOI: 10.27162/d.cnki.gjlin.2020.000537.
[46]
ELGER C E, HOPPE C. Diagnostic challenges in epilepsy: seizure under-reporting and seizure detection[J]. Lancet Neurol, 2018, 17(3): 279-288. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30038-3.

上一篇 磁共振动脉自旋标记技术在胎盘灌注中的研究进展
下一篇 2型糖尿病相关认知障碍的灰质体积与静息态功能连接的meta分析
  
诚聘英才 | 广告合作 | 免责声明 | 版权声明
联系电话:010-67113815
京ICP备19028836号-2