| Literature DB >> 34746970 |
Teng Zhang1,2,3, Yuting Li1,2,3, Shuilin Zhao1,2,3, Yuanfan Xu4, Xiaohui Zhang1,2,3, Shuang Wu1,2, Xiaofeng Dou1,2, Congcong Yu1,2, Jianhua Feng5, Yao Ding6, Junming Zhu7, Zexin Chen8, Hong Zhang9,10,11,12, Mei Tian13,14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: PET imaging has been widely used in diagnosis of neurological disorders; however, its application to pediatric population is limited due to lacking pediatric age-specific PET template. This study aims to develop a pediatric age-specific PET template (PAPT) and conduct a pilot study of epileptogenic focus localization in pediatric epilepsy.Entities:
Keywords: Epilepsy; Pediatric age–specific; Positron emission tomography (PET); Template
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34746970 PMCID: PMC8940757 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-021-05611-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging ISSN: 1619-7070 Impact factor: 10.057
Fig. 1Flowchart of iterative registration-averaging optimization. This optimization approach iterated between registration and averaging steps to create unbiased brain template
Fig. 2Comparison of PET templates. A 6–10 years PAPT; B 11–18 years PAPT; C pediatric linear template; D adult PET template. Arrows point blurred cortical structures in linear and adult templates
Fig. 3Comparison of spatial normalization. A, B Registration similarities and global transformation for the 6–10 years group, respectively; C, D 11–18 years group
Fig. 4Regions of potential registration bias in spatial normalization. A 6–10 years group; B 11–18 years group
Epileptogenic focus localization results
| Kappa (95% CI) | Detection rate | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6–10 years group ( | |||
| PAPT template | 0.710 (0.567–0.853) | 83.3% | 77.1% |
| Linear template | 0.485 (0.316–0.654) | 75.0% | 60.4% |
| Adult template | 0.461 (0.298–0.623) | 75.0% | 58.3% |
| 11–18 years group ( | |||
| PAPT template | 0.771 (0.669–0.872) | 92.7% | 81.7% |
| Linear template | 0.595 (0.479–0.711) | 85.4% | 67.1% |
| Adult template | 0.491 (0.368–0.614) | 84.1% | 58.5% |
| All patients ( | |||
| PAPT template | 0.757 (0.675–0.839) | 89.2% | 80.0% |
| Linear template | 0.569 (0.475–0.663) | 81.5% | 64.6% |
| Adult template | 0.496 (0.400–0.592) | 80.8% | 58.5% |
CI, confidence interval; PAPT, pediatric age–specific PET template
Fig. 5Localization results of patients whose foci were missed by routine visual assessment. A A 9-year-old boy: right frontal lobe hypo-metabolism, peak-t = − 4.04, cluster size = 963; B 18-year-old boy: left frontal lobe hyper-metabolism, peak-t = 7.37, cluster size = 1387; C 15-year-old boy: left temporal lobe hyper-metabolism, peak-t = 8.16, cluster size = 452 (P < 0.01, cluster size > 100)
Epileptogenic focus localization results for postsurgical seizure-free patients
| Kappa (95% CI) | Detection rate | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6–10 years seizure-free patients ( | |||
| PAPT template | 0.800 (0.553–1.000) | 100.0% | 85.7% |
| Linear template | 0.468 (0.158–0.778) | 92.9% | 57.1% |
| Adult template | 0.436 (0.115–0.757) | 92.9% | 57.1% |
| 11–18 years seizure-free patients ( | |||
| PAPT template | 0.685 (0.475–0.895) | 92.3% | 76.9% |
| Linear template | 0.536 (0.322–0.750) | 88.5% | 65.4% |
| Adult template | 0.439 (0.210–0.668) | 88.5% | 53.8% |
| All seizure-free patients ( | |||
| PAPT template | 0.743 (0.586–0.900) | 95.0% | 80.0% |
| Linear template | 0.536 (0.362–0.710) | 90.0% | 62.5% |
| Adult template | 0.469 (0.285–0.653) | 90.0% | 55.0% |
CI, confidence interval; PAPT, pediatric age–specific PET template
Fig. 6Localization results of patients who underwent epilepsy surgery. A Seizure-free 17-year-old girl who underwent right temporal lobe resection, peak-t = − 5.43, cluster size = 30,951; B seizure-free 13-year-old girl who underwent left frontal lobe resection, peak-t = − 6.07, cluster size = 29,482; C seizure-free 10-year-old boy who underwent left occipital lobe resection, peak-t = − 3.05, cluster size = 174; D non-seizure-free 10-year-old boy who underwent left frontal lobe resection. Localization cluster was nearby but without the resection area, peak-t = − 3.90, cluster size = 319 (P < 0.01, cluster size > 100)
Comparison of clusters within resection area and confounding clusters in postsurgical seizure-free patients
| Patient | Cluster within resection area | Confounding cluster | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Localization | Peak- | Size | Localization | Peak- | Size | |
| EP-4 | Left temporal lobe | − 3.71 | 1568* | Left frontal lobe | − 4.49 | 1391 |
| EP-44 | Right frontal lobe | − 4.30 | 1388 | Right temporal lobe | − 6.35 | 24,696* |
| EP-65 | Left temporal lobe | − 5.85 | 20,558* | Right temporal lobe | − 6.28 | 3816 |
| EP-82 | Left temporal lobe | − 2.27 | 252* | Right frontal lobe | − 3.28 | 146 |
| EP-105 | Left frontal lobe | − 3.41 | 342 | Right frontal lobe | − 3.51 | 226 |
| EP-109 | Left frontal lobe | − 3.12 | 472* | Left temporal lobe | − 3.60 | 181 |
*Largest cluster size