OBJECTIVE: Although subtraction ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI (SISCOM) is clinically useful in epilepsy surgery evaluation, it does not determine whether the ictal-interictal subtraction difference is statistically different from the expected random variation between 2 SPECT studies. We developed a statistical parametric mapping and MRI voxel-based method of analyzing ictal-interictal SPECT difference data (statistical ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI [STATISCOM]) and compared it with SISCOM. METHODS: Two serial SPECT studies were performed in 11 healthy volunteers without epilepsy (control subjects) to measure random variation between serial studies from individuals. STATISCOM and SISCOM images from 87 consecutive patients who had ictal SPECT studies and subsequent temporal lobectomy were assessed by reviewers blinded to clinical data and outcome. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement between blinded reviewers was higher for STATISCOM images than for SISCOM images (kappa = 0.81 vs kappa = 0.36). STATISCOM identified a hyperperfusion focus in 84% of patients, SISCOM in 66% (p < 0.05). STATISCOM correctly localized the temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) subtypes (mesial vs lateral neocortical) in 68% of patients compared with 24% by SISCOM (p = 0.02); subgroup analysis of patients without lesions (as determined by MRI) showed superiority of STATISCOM (80% vs 47%; p = 0.04). Moreover, the probability of seizure-free outcome was higher when STATISCOM correctly localized the TLE subtype than when it was indeterminate (81% vs 53%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Statistical ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI (STATISCOM) was superior to subtraction ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI for seizure localization before temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) surgery. STATISCOM localization to the correct TLE subtype was prognostically important for postsurgical seizure freedom.
OBJECTIVE: Although subtraction ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI (SISCOM) is clinically useful in epilepsy surgery evaluation, it does not determine whether the ictal-interictal subtraction difference is statistically different from the expected random variation between 2 SPECT studies. We developed a statistical parametric mapping and MRI voxel-based method of analyzing ictal-interictal SPECT difference data (statistical ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI [STATISCOM]) and compared it with SISCOM. METHODS: Two serial SPECT studies were performed in 11 healthy volunteers without epilepsy (control subjects) to measure random variation between serial studies from individuals. STATISCOM and SISCOM images from 87 consecutive patients who had ictal SPECT studies and subsequent temporal lobectomy were assessed by reviewers blinded to clinical data and outcome. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement between blinded reviewers was higher for STATISCOM images than for SISCOM images (kappa = 0.81 vs kappa = 0.36). STATISCOM identified a hyperperfusion focus in 84% of patients, SISCOM in 66% (p < 0.05). STATISCOM correctly localized the temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) subtypes (mesial vs lateral neocortical) in 68% of patients compared with 24% by SISCOM (p = 0.02); subgroup analysis of patients without lesions (as determined by MRI) showed superiority of STATISCOM (80% vs 47%; p = 0.04). Moreover, the probability of seizure-free outcome was higher when STATISCOM correctly localized the TLE subtype than when it was indeterminate (81% vs 53%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Statistical ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI (STATISCOM) was superior to subtraction ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI for seizure localization before temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) surgery. STATISCOM localization to the correct TLE subtype was prognostically important for postsurgical seizure freedom.
Authors: T J O'Brien; E L So; B P Mullan; G D Cascino; M F Hauser; B H Brinkmann; F W Sharbrough; F B Meyer Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-12-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: T J O'Brien; E L So; B P Mullan; M F Hauser; B H Brinkmann; N I Bohnen; D Hanson; G D Cascino; C R Jack; F W Sharbrough Journal: Neurology Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David J Chang; I George Zubal; Chris Gottschalk; Alejandro Necochea; Rik Stokking; Colin Studholme; Maria Corsi; Jessica Slawski; Susan S Spencer; Hal Blumenfeld Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Robert C Knowlton; Rotem A Elgavish; Al Bartolucci; Buddhiwardhan Ojha; Nita Limdi; Jeffrey Blount; Jorge G Burneo; Lawrence Ver Hoef; Lebron Paige; Edward Faught; Pongkiat Kankirawatana; Kristen Riley; Ruben Kuzniecky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: M R Newton; S F Berkovic; M C Austin; C C Rowe; W J McKay; P F Bladin Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1992-10 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Benjamin H Brinkmann; David T Jones; Matt Stead; Noojan Kazemi; Terence J O'Brien; Elson L So; Hal Blumenfeld; Brian P Mullan; Gregory A Worrell Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Elena Solli; Nicole A Colwell; Christopher Markosian; Anmol S Johal; Rebecca Houston; M Omar Iqbal; Irene Say; Joseph I Petrsoric; Luke D Tomycz Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Vlastimil Sulc; Samantha Stykel; Dennis P Hanson; Benjamin H Brinkmann; David T Jones; David R Holmes; Richard A Robb; Matthew L Senjem; Brian P Mullan; Robert E Watson; Daniel Horinek; Gregory D Cascino; Lily C Wong-Kisiel; Jeffrey W Britton; Elson L So; Gregory A Worrell Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ahmed Yassin; Khalid El-Salem; Abdel-Hameed Al-Mistarehi; Aiman Momani; Anas M Zein Alaabdin; Palak Shah; James Michael Mountz; Anto I Bagić Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 4.488