Methods for Identifying Epilepsy Surgery Targets Using Invasive EEG: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.9 3区 工程技术 Q2 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Karla Ivankovic, Alessandro Principe, Riccardo Zucca, Mara Dierssen, Rodrigo Rocamora
{"title":"Methods for Identifying Epilepsy Surgery Targets Using Invasive EEG: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Karla Ivankovic, Alessandro Principe, Riccardo Zucca, Mara Dierssen, Rodrigo Rocamora","doi":"10.3390/biomedicines12112597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The pre-surgical evaluation for drug-resistant epilepsy achieves seizure freedom in only 50-60% of patients. Efforts to identify quantitative intracranial EEG (qEEG) biomarkers of epileptogenicity are needed. This review summarizes and evaluates the design of qEEG studies, discusses barriers to biomarker adoption, and proposes refinements of qEEG study protocols.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included exploratory and prediction prognostic studies from MEDLINE and Scopus published between 2017 and 2023 that investigated qEEG markers for identifying the epileptogenic network as the surgical target. Cohort parameters, ground truth references, and analytical approaches were extracted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1789 search results, 128 studies were included. The study designs were highly heterogeneous. Half of the studies included a non-consecutive cohort, with sample sizes ranging from 2 to 166 patients (median of 16). The most common minimum follow-up was one year, and the seizure onset zone was the most common ground truth. Prediction studies were heterogeneous in their analytical approaches, and only 25 studies validated the marker through post-surgical outcome prediction. Outcome prediction performance decreased in larger cohorts. Conversely, longer follow-up periods correlated with higher prediction accuracy, and connectivity-based approaches yielded better predictions. The data and code were available in only 9% of studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To enhance the validation qEEG markers, we propose standardizing study designs to resemble clinical trials. This includes using a consecutive cohort with long-term follow-up, validating against surgical resection as ground truth, and evaluating markers through post-surgical outcome prediction. These considerations would improve the reliability and clinical adoption of qEEG markers.</p>","PeriodicalId":8937,"journal":{"name":"Biomedicines","volume":"12 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11592023/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedicines","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12112597","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The pre-surgical evaluation for drug-resistant epilepsy achieves seizure freedom in only 50-60% of patients. Efforts to identify quantitative intracranial EEG (qEEG) biomarkers of epileptogenicity are needed. This review summarizes and evaluates the design of qEEG studies, discusses barriers to biomarker adoption, and proposes refinements of qEEG study protocols.

Methods: We included exploratory and prediction prognostic studies from MEDLINE and Scopus published between 2017 and 2023 that investigated qEEG markers for identifying the epileptogenic network as the surgical target. Cohort parameters, ground truth references, and analytical approaches were extracted.

Results: Out of 1789 search results, 128 studies were included. The study designs were highly heterogeneous. Half of the studies included a non-consecutive cohort, with sample sizes ranging from 2 to 166 patients (median of 16). The most common minimum follow-up was one year, and the seizure onset zone was the most common ground truth. Prediction studies were heterogeneous in their analytical approaches, and only 25 studies validated the marker through post-surgical outcome prediction. Outcome prediction performance decreased in larger cohorts. Conversely, longer follow-up periods correlated with higher prediction accuracy, and connectivity-based approaches yielded better predictions. The data and code were available in only 9% of studies.

Conclusions: To enhance the validation qEEG markers, we propose standardizing study designs to resemble clinical trials. This includes using a consecutive cohort with long-term follow-up, validating against surgical resection as ground truth, and evaluating markers through post-surgical outcome prediction. These considerations would improve the reliability and clinical adoption of qEEG markers.

利用侵入性脑电图确定癫痫手术目标的方法:系统性综述。
背景:耐药性癫痫手术前评估仅能使 50-60% 的患者摆脱癫痫发作。因此需要努力确定致痫性的颅内脑电图(qEEG)定量生物标志物。本综述总结并评估了 qEEG 研究的设计,讨论了采用生物标记物的障碍,并提出了完善 qEEG 研究方案的建议:我们纳入了MEDLINE和Scopus在2017年至2023年间发表的探索性和预测性预后研究,这些研究调查了qEEG标记物,以确定作为手术目标的致痫网络。提取了队列参数、地面实况参考文献和分析方法:在1789项搜索结果中,共纳入128项研究。这些研究的设计差异很大。半数研究包括非连续队列,样本量从 2 到 166 例患者不等(中位数为 16 例)。最常见的最短随访时间为一年,发作起始区是最常见的基本事实。预测研究的分析方法各不相同,只有 25 项研究通过手术后的结果预测验证了标记物。队列越大,结果预测效果越差。相反,随访时间越长,预测准确率越高,基于连通性的方法也能产生更好的预测结果。只有9%的研究提供了数据和代码:为了加强 qEEG 标记的验证,我们建议将研究设计标准化,使其类似于临床试验。结论:为加强 qEEG 标记的验证,我们建议将研究设计标准化,使其类似于临床试验,包括使用长期随访的连续队列、以手术切除作为基本事实进行验证,以及通过手术后的结果预测来评估标记。这些考虑因素将提高 qEEG 标记的可靠性和临床应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biomedicines
Biomedicines Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.50%
发文量
2823
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Biomedicines (ISSN 2227-9059; CODEN: BIOMID) is an international, scientific, open access journal on biomedicines published quarterly online by MDPI.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信