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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Makhalova, Julia, Madec, Tanguy, Medina Villalon, Samuel, Jegou, Aude, Lagarde, Stanislas, Carron, Romain, Scavarda, Didier, Garnier, Elodie, Bénar, Christian G., Bartolomei, Fabrice
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