OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of statistical SPECT processing over traditional subtraction methods, we compared ictal-interictal SPECT analyzed by statistical parametric mapping (SPM) (ISAS), statistical ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI (STATISCOM), and subtraction ictal-interictal SPECT coregistered with MRI (SISCOM) in patients with MRI-negative focal temporal lobe epilepsy (nTLE) and extratemporal lobe epilepsy (nETLE). METHODS: We retrospectively identified 49 consecutive cases of drug-resistant focal epilepsy that had a negative preoperative MRI and underwent interictal and ictal SPECT prior to resective epilepsy surgery. Interictal and ictal SPECT scans were analyzed using SISCOM, ISAS, and STATISCOM to create hyperperfusion and hypoperfusion maps for each patient. Reviewers blinded to clinical data and the SPECT analysis method marked the site of probable seizure origin and indicated their confidence in the localization. RESULTS: In nTLE and nETLE, the hyperperfusions detected by STATISCOM (71% nTLE, 57% nETLE) and ISAS (67% nTLE, 53% nETLE) were more often colocalized with surgery resection site compared to SISCOM (38% nTLE, 36% nETLE). In nTLE, localization of the hyperperfusion to the region of surgery was associated with an excellent outcome for STATISCOM (p = 0.005) and ISAS (p = 0.027), but not in SISCOM (p = 0.071). This association was not present in nETLE for any method. CONCLUSION: In an unselected group of patients with normal MRI and focal epilepsy, SPM-based methods of SPECT processing showed better localization of SPECT hyperperfusion to surgical resection site and higher interobserver agreement compared to SISCOM. These results show the benefit of statistical SPECT processing methods and further highlight the challenge of nETLE.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of statistical SPECT processing over traditional subtraction methods, we compared ictal-interictal SPECT analyzed by statistical parametric mapping (SPM) (ISAS), statistical ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI (STATISCOM), and subtraction ictal-interictal SPECT coregistered with MRI (SISCOM) in patients with MRI-negative focal temporal lobe epilepsy (nTLE) and extratemporal lobe epilepsy (nETLE). METHODS: We retrospectively identified 49 consecutive cases of drug-resistant focal epilepsy that had a negative preoperative MRI and underwent interictal and ictal SPECT prior to resective epilepsy surgery. Interictal and ictal SPECT scans were analyzed using SISCOM, ISAS, and STATISCOM to create hyperperfusion and hypoperfusion maps for each patient. Reviewers blinded to clinical data and the SPECT analysis method marked the site of probable seizure origin and indicated their confidence in the localization. RESULTS: In nTLE and nETLE, the hyperperfusions detected by STATISCOM (71% nTLE, 57% nETLE) and ISAS (67% nTLE, 53% nETLE) were more often colocalized with surgery resection site compared to SISCOM (38% nTLE, 36% nETLE). In nTLE, localization of the hyperperfusion to the region of surgery was associated with an excellent outcome for STATISCOM (p = 0.005) and ISAS (p = 0.027), but not in SISCOM (p = 0.071). This association was not present in nETLE for any method. CONCLUSION: In an unselected group of patients with normal MRI and focal epilepsy, SPM-based methods of SPECT processing showed better localization of SPECT hyperperfusion to surgical resection site and higher interobserver agreement compared to SISCOM. These results show the benefit of statistical SPECT processing methods and further highlight the challenge of nETLE.
Authors: H J Won; K H Chang; J E Cheon; H D Kim; D S Lee; M H Han; I O Kim; S K Lee; C K Chung Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 3.825
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: K Radhakrishnan; E L So; P L Silbert; C R Jack; G D Cascino; F W Sharbrough; P C O'Brien Journal: Neurology Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Anna Mrelashvili; Robert J Witte; Elaine C Wirrell; Katherine C Nickels; Lily C Wong-Kisiel Journal: Pediatr Neurol Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Lara Jehi; Daniel Friedman; Chad Carlson; Gregory Cascino; Sandra Dewar; Christian Elger; Jerome Engel; Robert Knowlton; Ruben Kuzniecky; Anne McIntosh; Terence J O'Brien; Dennis Spencer; Michael R Sperling; Gregory Worrell; Bill Bingaman; Jorge Gonzalez-Martinez; Werner Doyle; Jacqueline French Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 5.864
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
Authors: Radek Mareček; Pavel Říha; Michaela Bartoňová; Martin Kojan; Martin Lamoš; Martin Gajdoš; Lubomír Vojtíšek; Michal Mikl; Marek Bartoň; Irena Doležalová; Martin Pail; Ondřej Strýček; Marta Pažourková; Milan Brázdil; Ivan Rektor Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Carla Oliveira Young; Elba C S C Etchbehere; Edna Marina Souza; Sergio Querino Brunetto; Allan de Oliveira Santos; Mariana C L Lima; Sebastian Ortiz-De la Rosa; Marina Alvim; Clarissa Lin Yasuda; Celso Darío Ramos; Fernando Cendes; Barbara Juarez Amorim Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 4.003