Back to Search Start Over

Epileptogenic Zone Localization With 18 FDG PET Using a New Dynamic Parametric Analysis.

Authors :
Mayoral M
Niñerola-Baizán A
Marti-Fuster B
Donaire A
Perissinotti A
Rumià J
Bargalló N
Sala-Llonch R
Pavia J
Ros D
Carreño M
Pons F
Setoain X
Source :
Frontiers in neurology [Front Neurol] 2019 Apr 17; Vol. 10, pp. 380. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Apr 17 (Print Publication: 2019).
Publication Year :
2019

Abstract

Introduction: [ <superscript>18</superscript> F]fluorodeoxyglucose ( <superscript>18</superscript> F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is part of the regular preoperative work-up in medically refractory epilepsy. As a complement to visual evaluation of PET, statistical parametric maps can help in the detection of the epileptogenic zone (EZ). However, software packages currently available are time-consuming and little intuitive for physicians. We develop a user-friendly software (referred as PET-analysis) for EZ localization in PET studies that allows dynamic real-time statistical parametric analysis. To evaluate its performance, the outcome of PET-analysis was compared with the results obtained by visual assessment and Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM). Methods: Thirty patients with medically refractory epilepsy who underwent presurgical <superscript>18</superscript> F-FDG PET with good post-operative outcomes were included. The <superscript>18</superscript> F-FDG PET studies were evaluated by visual assessment, with SPM8 and PET-analysis. In SPM, parametric T-maps were thresholded at corrected p < 0.05 and cluster size k = 50 and at uncorrected p < 0.001 and k = 100 (the most used parameters in the literature). Since PET-analysis rapidly processes different threshold combinations, T-maps were thresholded with multiple p -value and different clusters sizes. The presurgical EZ identified by visual assessment, SPM and PET-analysis was compared to the confirmed EZ according to post-surgical follow-up. Results: PET-analysis obtained 66.7% (20/30) of correctly localizing studies, comparable to the 70.0% (21/30) achieved by visual assessment and significantly higher ( p < 0.05) than that obtained with the SPM threshold p < 0.001/k = 100, of 36.7% (11/30). Only one study was positive, albeit non-localizing, with the SPM threshold corrected p < 0.05/k = 50. Concordance was substantial for PET-analysis (κ = 0.643) and visual interpretation (κ = 0.622), being fair for SPM (κ = 0.242). Conclusion: Compared to SPM with the fixed standard parameters, PET-analysis may be superior in EZ localization with its easy and rapid processing of different threshold combinations. The results of this initial proof-of-concept study validate the clinical use of PET-analysis as a robust objective complementary tool to visual assessment for EZ localization.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1664-2295
Volume :
10
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Frontiers in neurology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
31057476
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00380