Predicting seizure freedom after epilepsy surgery, a challenge in clinical practice.
Clinical judgment
Epilepsy surgery
Presurgical evaluation
Seizure freedom
Journal
Epilepsy & behavior : E&B
ISSN: 1525-5069
Titre abrégé: Epilepsy Behav
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100892858
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
24
01
2019
revised:
08
03
2019
accepted:
27
03
2019
pubmed:
30
4
2019
medline:
7
7
2020
entrez:
30
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of clinical judgment in predicting seizure outcome after resective epilepsy surgery relative to two recently published statistical tools [the Epilepsy Surgery Nomogram (ESN) and the modified Seizure-Freedom score (m-SFS)]. Details of presurgical evaluations of 20 patients who underwent epilepsy surgery were presented to 20 epilepsy experts. The final surgical treatment was also disclosed. The clinicians were asked to predict the likelihood of a good outcome (Engel 1) at 2 and 5 years in each case. The ESN and the m-SFS predictions were calculated with the data provided to the clinicians. The discriminative ability of clinical judgment, ESN, and m-SFS was assessed by calculating a concordance index (C-index). Expert opinion, the m-SFS and the ESN performances were compared using a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The mean age at surgery was 29 years (standard deviation [SD] = 14); 40% were male; 70% were right-handed, and thirteen (65%) had an Engel outcome 1 at 2 and 5 years. The mean C-index for the mean physician's prediction was 0.478 with a variance of 0.012. The ESN had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.528 and 0.533 for the 2-year and 5-year predictions in comparison with the clinicians' predictions that was 0.476, and 0.466, respectively. For the m-SFS, the AUC at 2 years and 5 years was 0.539 and 0.539, respectively. No statistical difference was noted between the ESN and the clinicians or between m-SFS and the ESN, but there is a moderate statistical difference favoring the m-SFS to the clinicians (p 0.0960 and 0.0514, for 2 and 5 years). Clinical judgment was not superior to the ESN nor to the m-SFS. Together with the interphysician's prediction variability, our findings reinforce the need for better tools to predict postoperative outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31035104
pii: S1525-5050(19)30077-0
doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.03.047
pmc: PMC6546523
mid: NIHMS1526383
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
124-130Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS097719
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Methods Inf Med. 2001 Mar;40(1):1-5
pubmed: 11310153
N Engl J Med. 2001 Aug 2;345(5):311-8
pubmed: 11484687
Brain. 2004 Sep;127(Pt 9):2018-30
pubmed: 15215219
Epilepsy Res. 2004 Nov;62(1):75-87
pubmed: 15519134
Int J Med Inform. 2008 Feb;77(2):81-97
pubmed: 17188928
Brain. 2007 Feb;130(Pt 2):574-84
pubmed: 17209228
Epilepsia. 2008 Aug;49(8):1317-23
pubmed: 18557776
Seizure. 2012 Sep;21(7):546-9
pubmed: 22717516
Seizure. 2012 Nov;21(9):722-8
pubmed: 22902290
Epilepsia. 2012 Oct;53(10):1731-8
pubmed: 22958128
Urology. 2013 May;81(5):956-61
pubmed: 23375915
Epilepsia. 2013 May;54(5):772-82
pubmed: 23586531
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jun 27;368(26):2445-8
pubmed: 23802513
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2:ii58-ii64
pubmed: 23882089
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2:ii65-ii72
pubmed: 23996094
Seizure. 2014 Jun;23(6):448-53
pubmed: 24680551
Epilepsia. 2015 Mar;56(3):359-65
pubmed: 25530458
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Mar;14(3):283-90
pubmed: 25638640
Clin Med (Lond). 2016 Aug;16(4):343-6
pubmed: 27481378
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Nov 3;16(1):138
pubmed: 27809908