PURPOSE: [18F]-Fluoro-d-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is an expensive, invasive, and not widely available technique used in the presurgical evaluation of temporal lobe epilepsy. We assessed its added value to the decision-making process in relation to other commonly used tests. METHODS: In a retrospective study of a large series of consecutive patients referred to the national Dutch epilepsy surgery program between 1996 and 2002, the contribution of FDG-PET, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and video-electroencephalogram (video-EEG) monitoring findings, alone or in combination, to the decision whether to perform surgery was investigated. The impact of FDG-PET was quantified by comparing documented decisions concerning surgery before and after FDG-PET results. RESULTS: Of 469 included patients, 110 (23%) underwent FDG-PET. In 78 of these patients (71%), FDG-PET findings led clinicians to change the decision they had made based on MRI and video-EEG monitoring findings. In 17% of all referred patients, the decision regarding surgical candidacy was based on FDG-PET findings. FDG-PET was most useful when previous MRI results were normal (p < 0.0001) or did not show unilateral temporal abnormalities (p < 0.0001), or when ictal EEG results were not consistent with MRI findings (p < 0.0001) or videotaped seizure semiology (p = 0.027). The positive and negative predictive values for MRI and video-EEG monitoring, which ranged from 0.48 to 0.67, were improved to 0.62 to 0.86 in combination with FDG-PET. CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred for TLE surgery, FDG-PET findings can form the basis for deciding whether a patient is eligible for surgery, and especially when MRI or video-EEG monitoring are nonlocalizing.
PURPOSE:[18F]-Fluoro-d-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is an expensive, invasive, and not widely available technique used in the presurgical evaluation of temporal lobe epilepsy. We assessed its added value to the decision-making process in relation to other commonly used tests. METHODS: In a retrospective study of a large series of consecutive patients referred to the national Dutch epilepsy surgery program between 1996 and 2002, the contribution of FDG-PET, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and video-electroencephalogram (video-EEG) monitoring findings, alone or in combination, to the decision whether to perform surgery was investigated. The impact of FDG-PET was quantified by comparing documented decisions concerning surgery before and after FDG-PET results. RESULTS: Of 469 included patients, 110 (23%) underwent FDG-PET. In 78 of these patients (71%), FDG-PET findings led clinicians to change the decision they had made based on MRI and video-EEG monitoring findings. In 17% of all referred patients, the decision regarding surgical candidacy was based on FDG-PET findings. FDG-PET was most useful when previous MRI results were normal (p < 0.0001) or did not show unilateral temporal abnormalities (p < 0.0001), or when ictal EEG results were not consistent with MRI findings (p < 0.0001) or videotaped seizure semiology (p = 0.027). The positive and negative predictive values for MRI and video-EEG monitoring, which ranged from 0.48 to 0.67, were improved to 0.62 to 0.86 in combination with FDG-PET. CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred for TLE surgery, FDG-PET findings can form the basis for deciding whether a patient is eligible for surgery, and especially when MRI or video-EEG monitoring are nonlocalizing.
Authors: William H Theodore; Ashley R Martinez; Omar I Khan; Clarissa J Liew; Sungyoung Auh; Irene M Dustin; John Heiss; Susumu Sato Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wesley T Kerr; Stefan T Nguyen; Andrew Y Cho; Edward P Lau; Daniel H Silverman; Pamela K Douglas; Navya M Reddy; Ariana Anderson; Jennifer Bramen; Noriko Salamon; John M Stern; Mark S Cohen Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Shiva Keihaninejad; Rolf A Heckemann; Ioannis S Gousias; Joseph V Hajnal; John S Duncan; Paul Aljabar; Daniel Rueckert; Alexander Hammers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sebastian Hinde; Marta Soares; Jane Burch; Anthony Marson; Nerys Woolacott; Stephen Palmer Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Ewout W Steyerberg; Karel G M Moons; Danielle A van der Windt; Jill A Hayden; Pablo Perel; Sara Schroter; Richard D Riley; Harry Hemingway; Douglas G Altman Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 11.069