4.7 Article

Functional imaging: II. Prediction of epilepsy surgery outcome

Journal

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 35-41

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ana.21419

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [K23 NS02218, K23 NS002218] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To gain information on the value of magnetic source imaging (MSI), 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), and ictal single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to predict seizure-free outcome following epilepsy surgery in patients who require intracranial electroencephalography (ICEEG). Methods: This work was part of a prospective observation study of epilepsy surgery candidates not sufficiently localized with scalp EEG and MRI. Of 160 patients enrolled 62 completed ICEEG and subsequent surgical resection. Sixty-one percent resulted in an Engel I seizure-free outcome at a minimum of one-year follow-up (mean = 3.4 years). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were computed for each modality. Multivariate logistical regression was used to identify prediction of surgical outcome by imaging test. Results: MSI sensitivity for a conclusively localized study was 55% with a positive predictive value of 78%. Eliminating non-diagnostic MSI cases (no spikes captured during recording) yielded a corrected negative predictive value of 64%. With available comparison subgroups FDG-PET and ictal SPECT values were similar to MSI. The OR (adjusted for epilepsy and MRI classification) for MSI prediction of seizure-free outcome was 4.4 (p =0.01). In cases with both PET and MSI, the adjusted OR for PET was 7.1 (p < 0.01) and for MSI was 6.4 (p = 0.01). In the cases with all three tests (n = 27), ictal SPECT had the highest OR of 9.1 (p = 0.05). Interpretation: MSI, FDG-PET, and ictal SPECT each have clinical value in predicting seizure-free surgical outcome in epilepsy surgery candidates who typically require ICEEG.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available