Cargando…
The role of quantitative markers in surgical prognostication after stereoelectroencephalography
OBJECTIVE: Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is the reference method in the presurgical exploration of drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. However, prognosticating surgery on an individual level is difficult. A quantified estimation of the most epileptogenic regions by searching for relevant biomarkers...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646998/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37735846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51900 |
_version_ | 1785135004909568000 |
---|---|
author | Makhalova, Julia Madec, Tanguy Medina Villalon, Samuel Jegou, Aude Lagarde, Stanislas Carron, Romain Scavarda, Didier Garnier, Elodie Bénar, Christian G. Bartolomei, Fabrice |
author_facet | Makhalova, Julia Madec, Tanguy Medina Villalon, Samuel Jegou, Aude Lagarde, Stanislas Carron, Romain Scavarda, Didier Garnier, Elodie Bénar, Christian G. Bartolomei, Fabrice |
author_sort | Makhalova, Julia |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is the reference method in the presurgical exploration of drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. However, prognosticating surgery on an individual level is difficult. A quantified estimation of the most epileptogenic regions by searching for relevant biomarkers can be proposed for this purpose. We investigated the performances of ictal (Epileptogenicity Index, EI; Connectivity EI, cEI), interictal (spikes, high‐frequency oscillations, HFO [80–300 Hz]; Spikes × HFO), and combined (Spikes × EI; Spikes × cEI) biomarkers in predicting surgical outcome and searched for prognostic factors based on SEEG‐signal quantification. METHODS: Fifty‐three patients operated on following SEEG were included. We compared, using precision‐recall, the epileptogenic zone quantified using different biomarkers (EZ(q)) against the visual analysis (EZ(C)). Correlations between the EZ resection rates or the EZ extent and surgical prognosis were analyzed. RESULTS: EI and Spikes × EI showed the best precision against EZ(c) (0.74; 0.70), followed by Spikes × cEI and cEI, whereas interictal markers showed lower precision. The EZ resection rates were greater in seizure‐free than in non‐seizure‐free patients for the EZ defined by ictal biomarkers and were correlated with the outcome for EI and Spikes × EI. No such correlation was found for interictal markers. The extent of the quantified EZ did not correlate with the prognosis. INTERPRETATION: Ictal or combined ictal–interictal markers overperformed the interictal markers both for detecting the EZ and predicting seizure freedom. Combining ictal and interictal epileptogenicity markers improves detection accuracy. Resection rates of the quantified EZ using ictal markers were the only statistically significant determinants for surgical prognosis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10646998 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106469982023-09-21 The role of quantitative markers in surgical prognostication after stereoelectroencephalography Makhalova, Julia Madec, Tanguy Medina Villalon, Samuel Jegou, Aude Lagarde, Stanislas Carron, Romain Scavarda, Didier Garnier, Elodie Bénar, Christian G. Bartolomei, Fabrice Ann Clin Transl Neurol Research Articles OBJECTIVE: Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is the reference method in the presurgical exploration of drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. However, prognosticating surgery on an individual level is difficult. A quantified estimation of the most epileptogenic regions by searching for relevant biomarkers can be proposed for this purpose. We investigated the performances of ictal (Epileptogenicity Index, EI; Connectivity EI, cEI), interictal (spikes, high‐frequency oscillations, HFO [80–300 Hz]; Spikes × HFO), and combined (Spikes × EI; Spikes × cEI) biomarkers in predicting surgical outcome and searched for prognostic factors based on SEEG‐signal quantification. METHODS: Fifty‐three patients operated on following SEEG were included. We compared, using precision‐recall, the epileptogenic zone quantified using different biomarkers (EZ(q)) against the visual analysis (EZ(C)). Correlations between the EZ resection rates or the EZ extent and surgical prognosis were analyzed. RESULTS: EI and Spikes × EI showed the best precision against EZ(c) (0.74; 0.70), followed by Spikes × cEI and cEI, whereas interictal markers showed lower precision. The EZ resection rates were greater in seizure‐free than in non‐seizure‐free patients for the EZ defined by ictal biomarkers and were correlated with the outcome for EI and Spikes × EI. No such correlation was found for interictal markers. The extent of the quantified EZ did not correlate with the prognosis. INTERPRETATION: Ictal or combined ictal–interictal markers overperformed the interictal markers both for detecting the EZ and predicting seizure freedom. Combining ictal and interictal epileptogenicity markers improves detection accuracy. Resection rates of the quantified EZ using ictal markers were the only statistically significant determinants for surgical prognosis. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10646998/ /pubmed/37735846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51900 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Neurological Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Makhalova, Julia Madec, Tanguy Medina Villalon, Samuel Jegou, Aude Lagarde, Stanislas Carron, Romain Scavarda, Didier Garnier, Elodie Bénar, Christian G. Bartolomei, Fabrice The role of quantitative markers in surgical prognostication after stereoelectroencephalography |
title | The role of quantitative markers in surgical prognostication after stereoelectroencephalography |
title_full | The role of quantitative markers in surgical prognostication after stereoelectroencephalography |
title_fullStr | The role of quantitative markers in surgical prognostication after stereoelectroencephalography |
title_full_unstemmed | The role of quantitative markers in surgical prognostication after stereoelectroencephalography |
title_short | The role of quantitative markers in surgical prognostication after stereoelectroencephalography |
title_sort | role of quantitative markers in surgical prognostication after stereoelectroencephalography |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646998/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37735846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51900 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT makhalovajulia theroleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT madectanguy theroleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT medinavillalonsamuel theroleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT jegouaude theroleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT lagardestanislas theroleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT carronromain theroleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT scavardadidier theroleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT garnierelodie theroleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT benarchristiang theroleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT bartolomeifabrice theroleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT makhalovajulia roleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT madectanguy roleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT medinavillalonsamuel roleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT jegouaude roleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT lagardestanislas roleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT carronromain roleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT scavardadidier roleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT garnierelodie roleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT benarchristiang roleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography AT bartolomeifabrice roleofquantitativemarkersinsurgicalprognosticationafterstereoelectroencephalography |