S Louis1, M Morita-Sherman1, S Jones1, D Vegh1, W Bingaman1, I Blumcke2, N Obuchowski3, F Cendes4, L Jehi5. 1. From the Epilepsy Center (S.L., M.M.-S., S.J., D.V., W.B., L.J.), and. 2. Institute of Neuropathology (I.B.), University Hospitals Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Quantitative Health Sciences (N.O.), Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Neurology (F.C.), University of Campinas-UNICAMP, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. From the Epilepsy Center (S.L., M.M.-S., S.J., D.V., W.B., L.J.), and Jehil@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: NeuroQuant is an FDA-approved software that performs automated MR imaging quantitative volumetric analysis. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of NeuroQuant analysis with visual MR imaging analysis by neuroradiologists with expertise in epilepsy in identifying hippocampal sclerosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 144 adult patients who underwent presurgical evaluation for temporal lobe epilepsy. The reference standard for hippocampal sclerosis was defined by having hippocampal sclerosis on pathology (n = 61) or not having hippocampal sclerosis on pathology (n = 83). Sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were compared between NeuroQuant analysis and visual MR imaging analysis by using a McNemar paired test of proportions and the Bayes theorem. RESULTS: NeuroQuant analysis had a similar specificity to neuroradiologist visual MR imaging analysis (90.4% versus 91.6%; P = .99) but a lower sensitivity (69.0% versus 93.0%, P < .001). The positive predictive value of NeuroQuant analysis was comparable with visual MR imaging analysis (84.0% versus 89.1%), whereas the negative predictive value was not comparable (79.8% versus 95.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Visual MR imaging analysis by a neuroradiologist with expertise in epilepsy had a higher sensitivity than did NeuroQuant analysis, likely due to the inability of NeuroQuant to evaluate changes in hippocampal T2 signal or architecture. Given that there was no significant difference in specificity between NeuroQuant analysis and visual MR imaging analysis, NeuroQuant can be a valuable tool when the results are positive, particularly in centers that lack neuroradiologists with expertise in epilepsy, to help identify and refer candidates for temporal lobe epilepsy resection. In contrast, a negative test could justify a case referral for further evaluation to ensure that false-negatives are detected.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: NeuroQuant is an FDA-approved software that performs automated MR imaging quantitative volumetric analysis. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of NeuroQuant analysis with visual MR imaging analysis by neuroradiologists with expertise in epilepsy in identifying hippocampal sclerosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 144 adult patients who underwent presurgical evaluation for temporal lobe epilepsy. The reference standard for hippocampal sclerosis was defined by having hippocampal sclerosis on pathology (n = 61) or not having hippocampal sclerosis on pathology (n = 83). Sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were compared between NeuroQuant analysis and visual MR imaging analysis by using a McNemar paired test of proportions and the Bayes theorem. RESULTS: NeuroQuant analysis had a similar specificity to neuroradiologist visual MR imaging analysis (90.4% versus 91.6%; P = .99) but a lower sensitivity (69.0% versus 93.0%, P < .001). The positive predictive value of NeuroQuant analysis was comparable with visual MR imaging analysis (84.0% versus 89.1%), whereas the negative predictive value was not comparable (79.8% versus 95.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Visual MR imaging analysis by a neuroradiologist with expertise in epilepsy had a higher sensitivity than did NeuroQuant analysis, likely due to the inability of NeuroQuant to evaluate changes in hippocampal T2 signal or architecture. Given that there was no significant difference in specificity between NeuroQuant analysis and visual MR imaging analysis, NeuroQuant can be a valuable tool when the results are positive, particularly in centers that lack neuroradiologists with expertise in epilepsy, to help identify and refer candidates for temporal lobe epilepsy resection. In contrast, a negative test could justify a case referral for further evaluation to ensure that false-negatives are detected.
Authors: J Von Oertzen; H Urbach; S Jungbluth; M Kurthen; M Reuber; G Fernández; C E Elger Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Lawrence W Ver Hoef; A LeBron Paige; Kristen O Riley; Joel Cure; Mehdi Soltani; Frank B Williams; Richard E Kennedy; Jerzy P Szaflarski; Robert C Knowlton Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Ingmar Blümcke; Maria Thom; Eleonora Aronica; Dawna D Armstrong; Fabrice Bartolomei; Andrea Bernasconi; Neda Bernasconi; Christian G Bien; Fernando Cendes; Roland Coras; J Helen Cross; Thomas S Jacques; Philippe Kahane; Gary W Mathern; Haijme Miyata; Solomon L Moshé; Buge Oz; Çiğdem Özkara; Emilio Perucca; Sanjay Sisodiya; Samuel Wiebe; Roberto Spreafico Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Benjamin H Brinkmann; Hari Guragain; Daniel Kenney-Jung; Jay Mandrekar; Robert E Watson; Kirk M Welker; Jeffrey W Britton; Robert J Witte Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: C Wang; H N Beadnall; S N Hatton; G Bader; D Tomic; D G Silva; M H Barnett Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Alexander C Whiting; Marcia Morita-Sherman; Manshi Li; Deborah Vegh; Brunno Machado de Campos; Fernando Cendes; Xiaofeng Wang; William Bingaman; Lara E Jehi Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht; Brent Munsell; Simon S Keller; Daniel L Drane; Jens H Jensen; M Vittoria Spampinato; Nigel P Pedersen; Bernd Weber; Ruben Kuzniecky; Carrie McDonald; Leonardo Bonilha Journal: Brain Commun Date: 2021-12-08
Authors: David E Ross; John Seabaugh; Jan M Seabaugh; Justis Barcelona; Daniel Seabaugh; Katherine Wright; Lee Norwind; Zachary King; Travis J Graham; Joseph Baker; Tanner Lewis Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 3.473
Authors: Hugh G Pemberton; Lyduine E Collij; Fiona Heeman; Ariane Bollack; Mahnaz Shekari; Gemma Salvadó; Isadora Lopes Alves; David Vallez Garcia; Mark Battle; Christopher Buckley; Andrew W Stephens; Santiago Bullich; Valentina Garibotto; Frederik Barkhof; Juan Domingo Gispert; Gill Farrar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Roland Opfer; Julia Krüger; Lothar Spies; Hagen H Kitzler; Sven Schippling; Ralph Buchert Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 2.995
Authors: Magdalena Maria Woźniak; Monika Zbroja; Małgorzata Matuszek; Olga Pustelniak; Weronika Cyranka; Katarzyna Drelich; Ewa Kopyto; Andrzej Materniak; Tomasz Słomka; Maciej Cebula; Agnieszka Brodzisz Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Hugh G Pemberton; Lara A M Zaki; Olivia Goodkin; Ravi K Das; Rebecca M E Steketee; Frederik Barkhof; Meike W Vernooij Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-09-03 Impact factor: 2.804