Search

Abstract Objective Ictal SPECT can be used as an estimate for the epileptogenic zone in people with focal epilepsy. Subtraction of ictal and interictal SPECT scans reveals the area with significant ictal hyperperfusion. Some methods use a control database to also correct for physiological variance. This control database is ideally scanner specific, but it is not trivial to obtain such a database because of ethical issues. In this study, we used a publicly available control database to compare ictal‐interictal SPECT analyzed by SPM (ISAS) with the most commonly used subtraction ictal SPECT co‐registered to MRI (SISCOM). Methods Ictal and interictal SPECTs of 26 patients (age range: 7–50 years, 15 adults, 11 children) with focal drug resistant epilepsy in workup for epilepsy surgery were retrospectively analyzed using both SISCOM and ISAS. The control database for ISAS was obtained from the ISAS website. Two groups of blinded reviewers determined the location of ictal hyperperfusion in all datasets. Results were compared between subtraction algorithms and with the resected area (if available) or the suspected epileptogenic zone. The number of significant clusters and the locations of maximum hyperperfusion were compared between algorithms. Results The location of ISAS and SISCOM hyperperfusion was the same in 14 patients (54%). ISAS localized in 6 patients where SISCOM did not. Compared to the resected area or suspected epileptogenic zone, SISCOM correctly localized in 55%, while ISAS did in 65% (not significantly different). ISAS shows significantly less clusters than SISCOM. The maximum hyperperfusion was in the reviewer's location in 65% for ISAS and 38% for SISCOM. Significance ISAS using a publicly available control database gives comparable or better results than SISCOM. ISAS results are easier to interpret than SISCOM results. We show that ISAS is a reliable alternative for SISCOM, which could easily be implemented in epilepsy surgery clinics. Plain Language Summary We explored the effectiveness of ISAS as an alternative to the widely used SISCOM for assessing SPECT scans in epilepsy surgery candidates. Utilizing a publicly available control database, we compared the two methods in 26 patients. The results indicate that ISAS might offer increased accuracy and interpretability, making it a promising option, especially for centers without access to a specific control dataset.

Objective: Ictal SPECT can be used as an estimate for the epileptogenic zone in people with focal epilepsy. Subtraction of ictal and interictal SPECT scans reveals the area with significant ictal hyperperfusion. Some methods use a control database to also correct for physiological variance. This control database is ideally scanner specific, but it is not trivial to obtain such a database because of ethical issues. In this study, we used a publicly available control database to compare ictal‐interictal SPECT analyzed by SPM (ISAS) with the most commonly used subtraction ictal SPECT co‐registered to MRI (SISCOM). Methods: Ictal and interictal SPECTs of 26 patients (age range: 7–50 years, 15 adults, 11 children) with focal drug resistant epilepsy in workup for epilepsy surgery were retrospectively analyzed using both SISCOM and ISAS. The control database for ISAS was obtained from the ISAS website. Two groups of blinded reviewers determined the location of ictal hyperperfusion in all datasets. Results were compared between subtraction algorithms and with the resected area (if available) or the suspected epileptogenic zone. The number of significant clusters and the locations of maximum hyperperfusion were compared between algorithms. Results: The location of ISAS and SISCOM hyperperfusion was the same in 14 patients (54%). ISAS localized in 6 patients where SISCOM did not. Compared to the resected area or suspected epileptogenic zone, SISCOM correctly localized in 55%, while ISAS did in 65% (not significantly different). ISAS shows significantly less clusters than SISCOM. The maximum hyperperfusion was in the reviewer's location in 65% for ISAS and 38% for SISCOM. Significance: ISAS using a publicly available control database gives comparable or better results than SISCOM. ISAS results are easier to interpret than SISCOM results. We show that ISAS is a reliable alternative for SISCOM, which could easily be implemented in epilepsy surgery clinics. Plain Language Summary: We explored the effectiveness of ISAS as an alternative to the widely used SISCOM for assessing SPECT scans in epilepsy surgery candidates. Utilizing a publicly available control database, we compared the two methods in 26 patients. The results indicate that ISAS might offer increased accuracy and interpretability, making it a promising option, especially for centers without access to a specific control dataset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective To assess feasibility and efficacy of subtraction ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI (SISCOM) for epilepsy localization in children who are candidates for resective surgery. Methods We retrospectively reviewed all patients ≤16 years with drug‐resistant epilepsy screened for epilepsy surgery in the University Hospital of Leuven from January 2009 to January 2018. Fifty‐eight hospitalizations for ictal SPECT and 51 SISCOM analyses in 44 patients were included. Mean age was 9.1 years. Hospitalizations for SISCOM were analyzed in terms of multiple variables affecting feasibility and efficacy. The localization of SISCOM was compared with the localization of the presumed epileptogenic zone (PEZ) as determined by video‐EEG. Results SISCOM was feasible in terms of chronic medication management, rescue antiepileptic therapy during hospitalization, and operative timings. Radiotracer injection occurred within 30 seconds from seizure onset in 91.4% of the patients. ictal SPECT imaging was performed within two hours from injection in 100% of the patients (mean: 40 minutes). SISCOM was able to localize the PEZ in 51.0% (26/51) and to additionally lateralize the PEZ in 17.6% (9/51), achieving better localizations than ictal SPECT, FDG‐PET, and MRI (P

Objective: To assess feasibility and efficacy of subtraction ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI (SISCOM) for epilepsy localization in children who are candidates for resective surgery. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients ≤16 years with drug‐resistant epilepsy screened for epilepsy surgery in the University Hospital of Leuven from January 2009 to January 2018. Fifty‐eight hospitalizations for ictal SPECT and 51 SISCOM analyses in 44 patients were included. Mean age was 9.1 years. Hospitalizations for SISCOM were analyzed in terms of multiple variables affecting feasibility and efficacy. The localization of SISCOM was compared with the localization of the presumed epileptogenic zone (PEZ) as determined by video‐EEG. Results: SISCOM was feasible in terms of chronic medication management, rescue antiepileptic therapy during hospitalization, and operative timings. Radiotracer injection occurred within 30 seconds from seizure onset in 91.4% of the patients. ictal SPECT imaging was performed within two hours from injection in 100% of the patients (mean: 40 minutes). SISCOM was able to localize the PEZ in 51.0% (26/51) and to additionally lateralize the PEZ in 17.6% (9/51), achieving better localizations than ictal SPECT, FDG‐PET, and MRI (P <.01). SISCOM was useful to localize the PEZ in 25% of patients with poorly localizing video‐EEG and in 27.8% of MRI‐negative cases. The occurrence of habitual seizures during injection for ictal SPECT and the temporal localization of the PEZ both correlated with a better SISCOM localization (P <.05). 36.4% (16/44) patients were finally selected for resective surgery, with a 87.5% seizure‐free rate at 12 months. A localizing SISCOM was associated with seizure freedom in 66.7% and with a Engel I‐II in 75.0% of our patients. Significance: SISCOM is a reliable tool to localize the epileptogenic zone in clinical practice and is both feasible and useful in children, adding precious presurgical information especially in patients with noninformative MRI or a poorly localizing video‐EEG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess feasibility and efficacy of subtraction ictal SPECT coregistered to MRI (SISCOM) for epilepsy localization in children who are candidates for resective surgery., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients ≤16 years with drug-resistant epilepsy screened for epilepsy surgery in the University Hospital of Leuven from January 2009 to January 2018. Fifty-eight hospitalizations for ictal SPECT and 51 SISCOM analyses in 44 patients were included. Mean age was 9.1 years. Hospitalizations for SISCOM were analyzed in terms of multiple variables affecting feasibility and efficacy. The localization of SISCOM was compared with the localization of the presumed epileptogenic zone (PEZ) as determined by video-EEG., Results: SISCOM was feasible in terms of chronic medication management, rescue antiepileptic therapy during hospitalization, and operative timings. Radiotracer injection occurred within 30 seconds from seizure onset in 91.4% of the patients. ictal SPECT imaging was performed within two hours from injection in 100% of the patients (mean: 40 minutes). SISCOM was able to localize the PEZ in 51.0% (26/51) and to additionally lateralize the PEZ in 17.6% (9/51), achieving better localizations than ictal SPECT, FDG-PET, and MRI ( P  < .01). SISCOM was useful to localize the PEZ in 25% of patients with poorly localizing video-EEG and in 27.8% of MRI-negative cases. The occurrence of habitual seizures during injection for ictal SPECT and the temporal localization of the PEZ both correlated with a better SISCOM localization ( P  < .05). 36.4% (16/44) patients were finally selected for resective surgery, with a 87.5% seizure-free rate at 12 months. A localizing SISCOM was associated with seizure freedom in 66.7% and with a Engel I-II in 75.0% of our patients., Significance: SISCOM is a reliable tool to localize the epileptogenic zone in clinical practice and is both feasible and useful in children, adding precious presurgical information especially in patients with noninformative MRI or a poorly localizing video-EEG., Competing Interests: None of the authors has any conflict of interest to disclose. The authors confirm that they have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines., (© 2019 The Authors. Epilepsia Open published by Wiley Periodicals Inc. on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.)