Beril Gok1, George Jallo, Reza Hayeri, Richard Wahl, Nafi Aygun. 1. Department of Radiology, Mercy Catholic Medical Center, Drexel University, 1500 Lansdowne, Avenue Darby, Philadelphia, PA 19023, USA. berylgok@gmail.com
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We studied the contribution of interictal FDG-PET ([18 F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography) in epileptic focus identification in temporal lobe epilepsy patients with positive, equivocal and negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS:Ninety-eight patients who underwent surgical treatment for drug resistant temporal lobe epilepsy after neuropsychological evaluation, scalp video EEG monitoring, FDG-PET, MRI and/or long-term intracranial EEG and with >12 months clinical follow-up were included in this study. FDG-PET findings were compared to MRI, histopathology, scalp video EEG and long-term intracranial EEG monitoring. RESULTS:FDG-PET lateralized the seizure focus in 95 % of MRI positive, 69 % of MRI equivocal and 84 % of MRI negative patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the surgical outcomes among the groups with Engel class I and II outcomes achieved in 86 %, 86 %, 84 % of MRI positive, equivocal and negative temporal lobe epilepsy patients, respectively. The patients with positive unilateral FDG-PET demonstrated excellent postsurgical outcomes, with 96 % Engel class I and II. Histopathology revealed focal lesions in 75 % of MRI equivocal, 84 % of MRI positive, and 23 % of MRI negative temporal lobe epilepsy cases. CONCLUSION:FDG-PET is an accurate noninvasive method in lateralizing the epileptogenic focus in temporal lobe epilepsy, especially in patients with normal or equivocal MRIs, or non-lateralized EEG monitoring. Very subtle findings in MRI are often associated with histopathological lesions and should be described in MRI reports. The patients with negative or equivocal MRI temporal lobe epilepsy are good surgical candidates with comparable postsurgical outcomes to patients with MRI positive temporal lobe epilepsy.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: We studied the contribution of interictal FDG-PET ([18 F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography) in epileptic focus identification in temporal lobe epilepsypatients with positive, equivocal and negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Ninety-eight patients who underwent surgical treatment for drug resistant temporal lobe epilepsy after neuropsychological evaluation, scalp video EEG monitoring, FDG-PET, MRI and/or long-term intracranial EEG and with >12 months clinical follow-up were included in this study. FDG-PET findings were compared to MRI, histopathology, scalp video EEG and long-term intracranial EEG monitoring. RESULTS:FDG-PET lateralized the seizure focus in 95 % of MRI positive, 69 % of MRI equivocal and 84 % of MRI negative patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the surgical outcomes among the groups with Engel class I and II outcomes achieved in 86 %, 86 %, 84 % of MRI positive, equivocal and negative temporal lobe epilepsypatients, respectively. The patients with positive unilateral FDG-PET demonstrated excellent postsurgical outcomes, with 96 % Engel class I and II. Histopathology revealed focal lesions in 75 % of MRI equivocal, 84 % of MRI positive, and 23 % of MRI negative temporal lobe epilepsy cases. CONCLUSION:FDG-PET is an accurate noninvasive method in lateralizing the epileptogenic focus in temporal lobe epilepsy, especially in patients with normal or equivocal MRIs, or non-lateralized EEG monitoring. Very subtle findings in MRI are often associated with histopathological lesions and should be described in MRI reports. The patients with negative or equivocal MRI temporal lobe epilepsy are good surgical candidates with comparable postsurgical outcomes to patients with MRI positive temporal lobe epilepsy.
Authors: R C Knowlton; K D Laxer; G Klein; S Sawrie; G Ende; R A Hawkins; O S Aassar; K Soohoo; S Wong; N Barbaro Journal: Neurology Date: 2001-10-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: P Ryvlin; S Bouvard; D Le Bars; G De Lamérie; M C Grégoire; P Kahane; J C Froment; F Mauguière Journal: Brain Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: G D Cascino; C R Jack; J E Parisi; F W Sharbrough; K A Hirschorn; F B Meyer; W R Marsh; P C O'Brien Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 1991-07 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Yee-Leng Tan; Hosung Kim; Seunghyun Lee; Tarik Tihan; Lawrence Ver Hoef; Susanne G Mueller; Anthony James Barkovich; Duan Xu; Robert Knowlton Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Maarten Haemels; Donatienne Van Weehaeghe; Evy Cleeren; Patrick Dupont; Johan van Loon; Tom Theys; Koen Van Laere; Wim Van Paesschen; Karolien Goffin Journal: Acta Neurol Belg Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 2.396
Authors: Dorian Pustina; Brian Avants; Michael Sperling; Richard Gorniak; Xiaosong He; Gaelle Doucet; Paul Barnett; Scott Mintzer; Ashwini Sharan; Joseph Tracy Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 4.881