4.5 Article

Radiosurgery versus open surgery for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy: The randomized, controlled ROSE trial

Journal

EPILEPSIA
Volume 59, Issue 6, Pages 1198-1207

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/epi.14045

Keywords

clinical trial; epilepsy surgery; focal epilepsy; quality of life; radiosurgery

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01 NS 058634-01A2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo compare stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) versus anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) for patients with pharmacoresistant unilateral mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE). MethodsThis randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial recruited adults eligible for open surgery among 14 centers in the USA, UK, and India. Treatment was either SRS at 24 Gy to the 50% isodose targeting mesial structures, or standardized ATL. Outcomes were seizure remission (absence of disabling seizures between 25 and 36 months), verbal memory (VM), and quality of life (QOL) at 36-month follow-up. ResultsA total of 58 patients (31 in SRS, 27 in ATL) were treated. Sixteen (52%) SRS and 21 (78%) ATL patients achieved seizure remission (difference between ATL and SRS = 26%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval = 46%, P value at the 15% noninferiority margin = .82). Mean VM changes from baseline for 21 English-speaking, dominant-hemisphere patients did not differ between groups; consistent worsening occurred in 36% of SRS and 57% of ATL patients. QOL improved with seizure remission. Adverse events were anticipated cerebral edema and related symptoms for some SRS patients, and cerebritis, subdural hematoma, and others for ATL patients. SignificanceThese data suggest that ATL has an advantage over SRS in terms of proportion of seizure remission, and both SRS and ATL appear to have effectiveness and reasonable safety as treatments for MTLE. SRS is an alternative to ATL for patients with contraindications for or with reluctance to undergo open surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available