4.7 Article

FDG-PET improves surgical outcome in negative MRI Taylor-type focal cortical dysplasias

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 75, 期 24, 页码 2168-2175

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31820203a9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of (18)FDG-PET in a recent series of patients operated for intractable partial epilepsy associated with histologically proven Taylor-type focal cortical dysplasia (TTFCD) and negative MRI. Methods: Of 23 consecutive patients (12 male, 7-38 years old) with negative 1.5-Tesla MRI, 10 exhibited subtle nonspecific abnormalities (e. g., unusual sulcus depth or gyral pattern) and the 13 others had strictly normal MRI. FDG-PET was analyzed both visually after coregistration on MRI and using SPM5 software. Metabolic data were compared with the epileptogenic zone (EZ) determined by stereo-EEG (SEEG) and surgical outcome. Results: Visual PET analysis disclosed a focal or regional hypometabolism in 18 cases (78%) corresponding to a single gyrus (n = 9) or a larger cortical region (n = 9). PET/MRI coregistration detected a partially hypometabolic gyrus in 4 additional cases. SPM5 PET analysis (n = 18) was concordant with visual analysis in 13 cases. Location of PET abnormalities was extratemporal in all cases, involving eloquent cortex in 15 (65%). Correlations between SEEG, PET/MRI, and histologic findings (n = 20) demonstrated that single hypometabolic gyri (n = 11) corresponded to EZ and TTFCD, which was localized at the bottom of the sulcus. Larger hypometabolic areas (n = 9) also included the EZ and the dysplastic cortex but were more extensive. Following limited cortical resection (mean follow-up 4 years), seizure freedom without permanent motor deficit was obtained in 20/23 patients (87%). Conclusions: (18)FDG-PET coregistered with MRI is highly sensitive to detect TTFCD and greatly improves diagnosis and surgical prognosis of patients with negative MRI. Neurology (R) 2010;75:2168-2175

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据