Clinical yield of magnetoencephalography distributed source imaging in epilepsy: A comparison with equivalent current dipole method

Giovanni Pellegrino, Tanguy Hedrich, Rasheda Arman Chowdhury, Jeffery A. Hall, Francois Dubeau, Jean Marc Lina, Eliane Kobayashi, Christophe Grova

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Source localization of interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) is clinically useful in the presurgical workup of epilepsy patients. It is usually obtained by equivalent current dipole (ECD) which localizes a point source and is the only inverse solution approved by clinical guidelines. In contrast, magnetic source imaging using distributed methods (dMSI) provides maps of the location and the extent of the generators, but its yield has not been clinically validated. We systematically compared ECD versus dMSI performed using coherent Maximum Entropy on the Mean (cMEM), a method sensitive to the spatial extent of the generators. Methods: 340 source localizations of IEDs derived from 49 focal epilepsy patients with foci well-defined through intracranial EEG, MRI lesions, and surgery were analyzed. The comparison was based on the assessment of the sublobar concordance with the focus and of the distance between the source and the focus. Results: dMSI sublobar concordance was significantly higher than ECD (81% vs 69%, P < 0.001), especially for extratemporal lobe sources (dMSI = 84%; ECD = 67%, P < 0.001) and for seizure free patients (dMSI = 83%; ECD = 70%, P < 0.001). The median distance from the focus was 4.88 mm for ECD and 3.44 mm for dMSI (P < 0.001). ECD dipoles were often wrongly localized in deep brain regions. Conclusions: dMSI using cMEM exhibited better accuracy. dMSI also offered the advantage of recovering more realistic maps of the generator, which could be exploited for neuronavigation aimed at targeting invasive EEG and surgical resection. Therefore, dMSI may be preferred to ECD in clinical practice. Hum Brain Mapp 39:218–231, 2018.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)218-231
Number of pages14
JournalHuman Brain Mapping
Volume39
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Magnetoencephalography
Epilepsy
Entropy
Neuronavigation
Partial Epilepsy
Brain
Electroencephalography
Seizures
Guidelines

Keywords

  • dipole
  • distributed source
  • interictal epileptiform discharges
  • magnetic source imaging
  • MEG
  • presurgical evaluation
  • source localization
  • spike
  • surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anatomy
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Clinical yield of magnetoencephalography distributed source imaging in epilepsy : A comparison with equivalent current dipole method. / Pellegrino, Giovanni; Hedrich, Tanguy; Chowdhury, Rasheda Arman; Hall, Jeffery A.; Dubeau, Francois; Lina, Jean Marc; Kobayashi, Eliane; Grova, Christophe.

In: Human Brain Mapping, Vol. 39, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 218-231.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pellegrino, Giovanni ; Hedrich, Tanguy ; Chowdhury, Rasheda Arman ; Hall, Jeffery A. ; Dubeau, Francois ; Lina, Jean Marc ; Kobayashi, Eliane ; Grova, Christophe. / Clinical yield of magnetoencephalography distributed source imaging in epilepsy : A comparison with equivalent current dipole method. In: Human Brain Mapping. 2018 ; Vol. 39, No. 1. pp. 218-231.
@article{f24a92d6711b43529724cbaa721d1569,
title = "Clinical yield of magnetoencephalography distributed source imaging in epilepsy: A comparison with equivalent current dipole method",
abstract = "Objective: Source localization of interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) is clinically useful in the presurgical workup of epilepsy patients. It is usually obtained by equivalent current dipole (ECD) which localizes a point source and is the only inverse solution approved by clinical guidelines. In contrast, magnetic source imaging using distributed methods (dMSI) provides maps of the location and the extent of the generators, but its yield has not been clinically validated. We systematically compared ECD versus dMSI performed using coherent Maximum Entropy on the Mean (cMEM), a method sensitive to the spatial extent of the generators. Methods: 340 source localizations of IEDs derived from 49 focal epilepsy patients with foci well-defined through intracranial EEG, MRI lesions, and surgery were analyzed. The comparison was based on the assessment of the sublobar concordance with the focus and of the distance between the source and the focus. Results: dMSI sublobar concordance was significantly higher than ECD (81{\%} vs 69{\%}, P < 0.001), especially for extratemporal lobe sources (dMSI = 84{\%}; ECD = 67{\%}, P < 0.001) and for seizure free patients (dMSI = 83{\%}; ECD = 70{\%}, P < 0.001). The median distance from the focus was 4.88 mm for ECD and 3.44 mm for dMSI (P < 0.001). ECD dipoles were often wrongly localized in deep brain regions. Conclusions: dMSI using cMEM exhibited better accuracy. dMSI also offered the advantage of recovering more realistic maps of the generator, which could be exploited for neuronavigation aimed at targeting invasive EEG and surgical resection. Therefore, dMSI may be preferred to ECD in clinical practice. Hum Brain Mapp 39:218–231, 2018.",
keywords = "dipole, distributed source, interictal epileptiform discharges, magnetic source imaging, MEG, presurgical evaluation, source localization, spike, surgery",
author = "Giovanni Pellegrino and Tanguy Hedrich and Chowdhury, {Rasheda Arman} and Hall, {Jeffery A.} and Francois Dubeau and Lina, {Jean Marc} and Eliane Kobayashi and Christophe Grova",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/hbm.23837",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "218--231",
journal = "Human Brain Mapping",
issn = "1065-9471",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical yield of magnetoencephalography distributed source imaging in epilepsy

T2 - A comparison with equivalent current dipole method

AU - Pellegrino, Giovanni

AU - Hedrich, Tanguy

AU - Chowdhury, Rasheda Arman

AU - Hall, Jeffery A.

AU - Dubeau, Francois

AU - Lina, Jean Marc

AU - Kobayashi, Eliane

AU - Grova, Christophe

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objective: Source localization of interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) is clinically useful in the presurgical workup of epilepsy patients. It is usually obtained by equivalent current dipole (ECD) which localizes a point source and is the only inverse solution approved by clinical guidelines. In contrast, magnetic source imaging using distributed methods (dMSI) provides maps of the location and the extent of the generators, but its yield has not been clinically validated. We systematically compared ECD versus dMSI performed using coherent Maximum Entropy on the Mean (cMEM), a method sensitive to the spatial extent of the generators. Methods: 340 source localizations of IEDs derived from 49 focal epilepsy patients with foci well-defined through intracranial EEG, MRI lesions, and surgery were analyzed. The comparison was based on the assessment of the sublobar concordance with the focus and of the distance between the source and the focus. Results: dMSI sublobar concordance was significantly higher than ECD (81% vs 69%, P < 0.001), especially for extratemporal lobe sources (dMSI = 84%; ECD = 67%, P < 0.001) and for seizure free patients (dMSI = 83%; ECD = 70%, P < 0.001). The median distance from the focus was 4.88 mm for ECD and 3.44 mm for dMSI (P < 0.001). ECD dipoles were often wrongly localized in deep brain regions. Conclusions: dMSI using cMEM exhibited better accuracy. dMSI also offered the advantage of recovering more realistic maps of the generator, which could be exploited for neuronavigation aimed at targeting invasive EEG and surgical resection. Therefore, dMSI may be preferred to ECD in clinical practice. Hum Brain Mapp 39:218–231, 2018.

AB - Objective: Source localization of interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) is clinically useful in the presurgical workup of epilepsy patients. It is usually obtained by equivalent current dipole (ECD) which localizes a point source and is the only inverse solution approved by clinical guidelines. In contrast, magnetic source imaging using distributed methods (dMSI) provides maps of the location and the extent of the generators, but its yield has not been clinically validated. We systematically compared ECD versus dMSI performed using coherent Maximum Entropy on the Mean (cMEM), a method sensitive to the spatial extent of the generators. Methods: 340 source localizations of IEDs derived from 49 focal epilepsy patients with foci well-defined through intracranial EEG, MRI lesions, and surgery were analyzed. The comparison was based on the assessment of the sublobar concordance with the focus and of the distance between the source and the focus. Results: dMSI sublobar concordance was significantly higher than ECD (81% vs 69%, P < 0.001), especially for extratemporal lobe sources (dMSI = 84%; ECD = 67%, P < 0.001) and for seizure free patients (dMSI = 83%; ECD = 70%, P < 0.001). The median distance from the focus was 4.88 mm for ECD and 3.44 mm for dMSI (P < 0.001). ECD dipoles were often wrongly localized in deep brain regions. Conclusions: dMSI using cMEM exhibited better accuracy. dMSI also offered the advantage of recovering more realistic maps of the generator, which could be exploited for neuronavigation aimed at targeting invasive EEG and surgical resection. Therefore, dMSI may be preferred to ECD in clinical practice. Hum Brain Mapp 39:218–231, 2018.

KW - dipole

KW - distributed source

KW - interictal epileptiform discharges

KW - magnetic source imaging

KW - MEG

KW - presurgical evaluation

KW - source localization

KW - spike

KW - surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031124220&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031124220&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/hbm.23837

DO - 10.1002/hbm.23837

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85031124220

VL - 39

SP - 218

EP - 231

JO - Human Brain Mapping

JF - Human Brain Mapping

SN - 1065-9471

IS - 1

ER -