Literature DB >> 11483674

The utility of a 3-dimensional, large-field-of-view, sodium iodide crystal--based PET scanner in the presurgical evaluation of partial epilepsy.

T J O'Brien1, R J Hicks, R Ware, D S Binns, M Murphy, M J Cook.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: (18)F-FDG PET is an accurate and reliable technique for localizing medically refractory temporal lobe epilepsy, but widespread use has been hindered by limited reimbursement in many countries because of the high cost of traditional PET equipment and radioisotopes. Additionally, the place of FDG PET as a cost-effective tool for presurgical evaluation of epilepsy has been questioned because of limited data showing that FDG PET provides localization information incremental to that provided by more established techniques, particularly MRI and ictal electroencephalography (EEG). Three-dimensional (3D), large-field-of-view, sodium iodide crystal-based scanners have lower equipment and running costs and better multiplanar resolution than traditional 2-dimensional bismuth germinate (BGO) systems but have not yet been validated for evaluation of epilepsy. Our purpose was to investigate the localization rate, accuracy, and prognostic value of FDG PET images acquired on a 3D, large-field-of-view, sodium iodide crystal-based PET scanner in the presurgical evaluation of intractable partial epilepsy. We also wanted to establish the incremental value of FDG PET over established MRI and ictal EEG techniques.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients who were surgical candidates because of medically refractory partial epilepsy were examined. For most of these patients, the lesions had not been clearly localized on conventional assessment. The FDG PET scans were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers who were unaware of the patients' clinical details, ictal EEG findings, and volumetric MRI results, and the FDG PET results were correlated with those of MRI and EEG and with postsurgical outcome.
RESULTS: Forty-two patients (76%) had localizing FDG PET images (37 temporal, 5 extratemporal). The ictal EEG recordings were localizing in 66%, and the MRI findings were localizing in 27% (which increased to 35% after the MRI findings were reviewed again after PET). Concordance between the site of the PET localizations and the site of the MRI or EEG localizations was 100%. The PET images were localizing in 63% and 69% of patients with nonlocalizing ictal EEG and MRI findings, respectively. Twenty-one of 24 patients who subsequently underwent epilepsy surgery had localizing FDG PET images; of these 21 patients, 18 (86%) had a class I outcome. Multiple regression analysis showed the FDG PET results to be predictive of postsurgical outcome independently of the MRI findings.
CONCLUSION: For intractable partial epilepsy, FDG PET using a 3D, large-field-of-view, sodium iodide crystal-based scanner provided clinically useful localizing information that was at least as accurate as the results reported for traditional BGO-based scanners. The PET images provided prognostically significant localization information incremental to that provided by volumetric MRI and ictal EEG, particularly if 1 of these studies was nonlocalizing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11483674

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  10 in total

1.  Estimating the input function non-invasively for FDG-PET quantification with multiple linear regression analysis: simulation and verification with in vivo data.

Authors:  Yu-Hua Fang; Tsair Kao; Ren-Shyan Liu; Liang-Chih Wu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-01-23       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  Neuroimaging of epilepsy.

Authors:  Fernando Cendes; William H Theodore; Benjamin H Brinkmann; Vlastimil Sulc; Gregory D Cascino
Journal:  Handb Clin Neurol       Date:  2016

3.  "Magnetic resonance imaging negative positron emission tomography positive" temporal lobe epilepsy: FDG-PET pattern differs from mesial temporal lobe epilepsy.

Authors:  R P Carne; M J Cook; L R MacGregor; C J Kilpatrick; R J Hicks; T J O'Brien
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.488

4.  PET imaging in pediatric neuroradiology: current and future applications.

Authors:  Sunhee Kim; Noriko Salamon; Hollie A Jackson; Stefan Blüml; Ashok Panigrahy
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2009-11-24

Review 5.  Current status and future role of brain PET/MRI in clinical and research settings.

Authors:  P Werner; H Barthel; A Drzezga; O Sabri
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  Neurologic Applications of PET/MR Imaging.

Authors:  Michelle M Miller-Thomas; Tammie L S Benzinger
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 2.266

7.  The evaluation of FDG-PET imaging for epileptogenic focus localization in patients with MRI positive and MRI negative temporal lobe epilepsy.

Authors:  Beril Gok; George Jallo; Reza Hayeri; Richard Wahl; Nafi Aygun
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2012-12-08       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 8.  Combination of PET and Magnetoencephalography in the Presurgical Assessment of MRI-Negative Epilepsy.

Authors:  Sylvain Rheims; Julien Jung; Philippe Ryvlin
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 4.003

9.  Machine learning approaches for imaging-based prognostication of the outcome of surgery for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy.

Authors:  Benjamin Sinclair; Varduhi Cahill; Jarrel Seah; Andy Kitchen; Lucy E Vivash; Zhibin Chen; Charles B Malpas; Marie F O'Shea; Patricia M Desmond; Rodney J Hicks; Andrew P Morokoff; James A King; Gavin C Fabinyi; Andrew H Kaye; Patrick Kwan; Samuel F Berkovic; Meng Law; Terence J O'Brien
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 6.740

10.  'MRI-negative PET-positive' temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) and mesial TLE differ with quantitative MRI and PET: a case control study.

Authors:  Ross P Carne; Terence J O'Brien; Christine J Kilpatrick; Lachlan R Macgregor; Lucas Litewka; Rodney J Hicks; Mark J Cook
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2007-06-24       Impact factor: 2.474

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.