Higher Validity, Lower Radiation: A New Ictal Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Framework.
Journal
Annals of neurology
ISSN: 1531-8249
Titre abrégé: Ann Neurol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7707449
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Aug 2024
21 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
30
07
2024
received:
08
08
2023
accepted:
05
08
2024
medline:
21
8
2024
pubmed:
21
8
2024
entrez:
21
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To assess whether arterial spin labeling perfusion images of healthy controls can enhance ictal single-photon emission computed tomography analysis and whether the acquisition of the interictal image can be omitted. We developed 2 pipelines: The first uses ictal and interictal images and compares these to single-photon emission computed tomography and arterial spin labeling of healthy controls. The second pipeline uses only the ictal image and the analogous healthy controls. Both pipelines were compared to the gold standard analysis and evaluated on data of individuals with epilepsy who underwent ictal single-photon emission computed tomography imaging during presurgical evaluation between 2010 and 2022. Fifty healthy controls prospectively underwent arterial spin labeling imaging. The correspondence between the detected hyperperfusion and the postoperative resection cavity or the presumably affected lobe was assessed using Dice score and mean Euclidean distance. Additionally, the outcomes of the pipelines were automatically assigned to 1 of 5 concordance categories. Inclusion criteria were met by 43 individuals who underwent epilepsy surgery and by 73 non-surgical individuals with epilepsy. Compared to the gold standard analysis, both pipelines resulted in significantly higher Dice scores and lower mean distances (p < 0.05). The combination of both provided localizing results in 85/116 cases, compared to 54/116 generated by the current gold standard analysis and the ictal image alone produced localizing results in 60/116 (52%) cases. We propose a new ictal single-photon emission computed tomography protocol; it finds relevantly more ictal hyperperfusion, and halves the radiation dose in about half of the individuals. ANN NEUROL 2024.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : BONFOR research commission, University Bonn
ID : 2021-4-05
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Annals of Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Neurological Association.
Références
Fiest KM, Sauro KM, Wiebe S, et al. Prevalence and incidence of epilepsy. Neurology 2017;88:296–303. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003509.
von Oertzen TJ. PET and ictal SPECT can be helpful for localizing epileptic foci. Curr Opin Neurol 2018;31:184–191.
Rowe CC, Berkovic SF, Sia STB, et al. Localization of epileptic foci with postictal single photon emission computed tomography. Ann Neurol 1989;26:660–668.
Hougaard K, Oikawa T, Sveinsdottir E, et al. Regional cerebral blood flow in focal cortical epilepsy. Arch Neurol 1976;33:527–535.
Chang DJ, Zubal IG, Gottschalk C, et al. Comparison of statistical parametric mapping and SPECT difference imaging in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 2002;43:68–74.
Kazemi NJ, Worrell GA, Stead SM, et al. Ictal SPECT statistical parametric mapping in temporal lobe epilepsy surgery. Neurology 2010;74:70–76.
Sulc V, Stykel S, Hanson DP, et al. Statistical SPECT processing in MRI‐negative epilepsy surgery. Neurology 2014;82:932–939.
Taha AA, Hanbury A. Metrics for evaluating 3D medical image segmentation: analysis, selection, and tool. BMC Med Imaging 2015;15:29.
McNally KA, Paige ALB, Varghese G, et al. Localizing value of ictal‐interictal SPECT analyzed by SPM (ISAS). Epilepsia 2005;46:1450–1464.
Eklund A, Nichols TE, Knutsson H. Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false‐positive rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016;113:E4929.
Nichols T, Holmes A. Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging. In: Human brain function. 2004:887–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012264841-0/50048-2.
Alsop DC, Detre JA, Golay X, et al. Recommended implementation of arterial spin‐labeled perfusion MRI for clinical applications: a consensus of the ISMRM perfusion study group and the European consortium for ASL in dementia. Magn Reson Med 2015;73:102–116.
Schidlowski M, Stirnberg R, Stöcker T, Rüber T. Reliability of quantitative transverse relaxation time mapping with T2‐prepared whole brain pCASL. Sci Rep 2020;10:18299.
Neumann K, Schidlowski M, Günther M, et al. Reliability and reproducibility of Hadamard encoded pseudo‐continuous arterial spin labeling in healthy elderly. Front Neurosci 2021;15:711898. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.711898.
Engel J. Update on surgical treatment of the epilepsies. Neurology 1993;43:1612.
Buxton RB, Frank LR, Wong EC, et al. A general kinetic model for quantitative perfusion imaging with arterial spin labeling. Magn Reson Med 1998;40:383–396.
Chappell MA, Groves AR, Whitcher B, Woolrich MW. Variational Bayesian inference for a nonlinear forward model. IEEE Trans Signal Process 2009;57:223–236.
Winkler AM, Ridgway GR, Webster MA, et al. Permutation inference for the general linear model. Neuroimage 2014;92:381–397.
Scheinost D, Teisseyre TZ, Distasio M, et al. New open‐source ictal SPECT analysis method implemented in BioImage suite. Epilepsia 2010;51:703–707.
Jenkinson M, Beckmann CF, Behrens TEJ, et al. FSL. Neuroimage 2012;62:782–790.
Henschel L, Conjeti S, Estrada S, et al. FastSurfer‐a fast and accurate deep learning based neuroimaging pipeline. Neuroimage 2020;219:117012.
Dale AM, Fischl B, Sereno MI. Cortical surface‐based analysis: I segmentation and surface reconstruction. Neuroimage 1999;9:179–194.
van der Walt S, Schönberger JL, Nunez‐Iglesias J, et al. Scikit‐image: image processing in python. PeerJ 2014;2:e453.
Fischl B, Salat DH, Busa E, et al. Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron 2002;33:341–355.
Cardoso MJ, Modat M, Wolz R, et al. Geodesic information flows: spatially‐variant graphs and their application to segmentation and fusion. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2015;34:1976–1988.
Schulte F, Bitzer F, Gärtner FC, et al. The diagnostic value of ictal SPECT—A retrospective, semiquantitative monocenter study. Epilepsia Open 2023;8:183–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/epi4.12694.
Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971;76:378–382.
Dice LR. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 1945;26:297–302.
Brett M, Markiewicz CJ, Hanke M, et al. nipy/nibabel: (4.0.0). Zenodo 2022. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6658382.
Gorgolewski K, Burns CD, Madison C, et al. Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in python. Front Neuroinform 2011;5. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroinformatics/articles/10.3389/fninf.2011.00013.
el Tahry R, Wang ZI, Thandar A, et al. Magnetoencephalography and ictal SPECT in patients with failed epilepsy surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 2018;129:1651–1657.
Alim‐Marvasti A, Romagnoli G, Dahele K, et al. Probabilistic landscape of seizure semiology localizing values. Brain Commun 2022;4:fcac130.
Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods 2020;17:261–272.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1988.
Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education. Routledge, 2007.
la Fougère C, Rominger A, Förster S, et al. PET and SPECT in epilepsy: a critical review. Epilepsy Behav 2009;15:50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2009.02.025.
Van Paesschen W, Dupont P, Sunaert S, et al. The use of SPECT and PET in routine clinical practice in epilepsy. Curr Opin Neurol 2007;20:194–202.
Wichert‐Ana L, Velasco TR, Terra‐Bustamante VC, et al. Typical and atypical perfusion patterns in periictal SPECT of patients with unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 2001;42:660–666.
Kheder A, Thome U, Aung T, et al. Investigation of networks underlying hyperkinetic seizures utilizing ictal SPECT. Neurology 2020;95:e637–e642.
Krishnan B, Tousseyn S, Nayak CS, et al. Neurovascular networks in epilepsy: correlating ictal blood perfusion with intracranial electrophysiology. Neuroimage 2021;231:117838.
Ho SS, Berkovic SF, McKay WJ, et al. Temporal lobe epilepsy subtypes: differential patterns of cerebral perfusion on ictal SPECT. Epilepsia 1996;37:788–795.
Krishnan B, Tousseyn S, Wang ZI, et al. Novel noninvasive identification of patient‐specific epileptic networks in focal epilepsies: linking single‐photon emission computed tomography perfusion during seizures with resting‐state magnetoencephalography dynamics. Hum Brain Mapp 2023;44:1695–1710.
Shin WC, Hong SB, Tae WS, Kim SE. Ictal hyperperfusion patterns according to the progression of temporal lobe seizures. Neurology 2002;58:373–380.
Ramchuankiat S, Jarumaneeroj P, Limotai C, et al. Impact of injection time on migration of SPECT seizure onset in temporal lobe epilepsy. 2017 39th Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2017;1465–1468. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8037111.
Stamoulis C, Verma N, Kaulas H, et al. The promise of subtraction ictal SPECT co‐registered to MRI for improved seizure localization in pediatric epilepsies: affecting factors and relationship to the surgical outcome. Epilepsy Res 2017;129:59–66.
Lee JD, Kim HJ, Lee BI, et al. Evaluation of ictal brain SPET using statistical parametric mapping in temporal lobe epilepsy. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:1658–1665.
Holman BL, Johnson KA, Gerada B, et al. The Scintigraphic appearance of Alzheimer's disease: a prospective study using technetium‐99m‐HMPAO SPECT. J Nucl Med 1992;33:181–185.
von Oertzen TJ, Gröppel G, Katletz S, et al. SPECT and PET in nonlesional epilepsy. Clinical Epileptology 2023;36:104–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10309-023-00577-1.