Interictal and ictal source localization for epilepsy surgery using high-density EEG with MEG: a prospective long-term study.

Abstract

Drug-resistant focal epilepsy is a major clinical problem and surgery is under-used. Better non-invasive techniques for epileptogenic zone localization are needed when MRI shows no lesion or an extensive lesion. The problem is interictal and ictal localization before propagation from the epileptogenic zone. High-density EEG (HDEEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) offer millisecond-order temporal resolution to address this but co-acquisition is challenging, ictal MEG studies are rare, long-term prospective studies are lacking, and fundamental questions remain. Should HDEEG-MEG discharges be assessed independently [electroencephalographic source localization (ESL), magnetoencephalographic source localization (MSL)] or combined (EMSL) for source localization? Which phase of the discharge best characterizes the epileptogenic zone (defined by intracranial EEG and surgical resection relative to outcome)? Does this differ for interictal and ictal discharges? Does MEG detect mesial temporal lobe discharges? Thirteen patients (10 non-lesional, three extensive-lesional) underwent synchronized HDEEG-MEG (72-94 channel EEG, 306-sensor MEG). Source localization (standardized low-resolution tomographic analysis with MRI patient-individualized boundary-element method) was applied to averaged interictal epileptiform discharges (IED) and ictal discharges at three phases: 'early-phase' (first latency 90% explained variance), 'mid-phase' (first of 50% rising-phase, 50% mean global field power), 'late-phase' (negative peak). 'Earliest-solution' was the first of the three early-phase solutions (ESL, MSL, EMSL). Prospective follow-up was 3-21 (median 12) months before surgery, 14-39 (median 21) months after surgery. IEDs (n = 1474) were recorded, seen in: HDEEG only, 626 (42%); MEG only, 232 (16%); and both 616 (42%). Thirty-three seizures were captured, seen in: HDEEG only, seven (21%); MEG only, one (3%); and both 25 (76%). Intracranial EEG was done in nine patients. Engel scores were I (9/13, 69%), II (2/13,15%), and III (2/13). MEG detected baso-mesial temporal lobe epileptogenic zone sources. Epileptogenic zone OR [odds ratio(s)] were significantly higher for earliest-solution versus early-phase IED-surgical resection and earliest-solution versus all mid-phase and late-phase solutions. ESL outperformed EMSL for ictal-surgical resection [OR 3.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-11.55, P = 0.036]. MSL outperformed EMSL for IED-intracranial EEG (OR 4.67, 95% CI 1.19-18.34, P = 0.027). ESL outperformed MSL for ictal-surgical resection (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.16-12.03, P = 0.028) but was outperformed by MSL for IED-intracranial EEG (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.73, P = 0.017). Thus, (i) HDEEG and MEG source solutions more accurately localize the epileptogenic zone at the earliest resolvable phase of interictal and ictal discharges, not mid-phase (as is common practice) or late peak-phase (when signal-to-noise ratios are maximal); (ii) from empirical observation of the differential timing of HDEEG and MEG discharges and based on the superiority of ESL plus MSL over either modality alone and over EMSL, concurrent HDEEG-MEG signals should be assessed independently, not combined; (iii) baso-mesial temporal lobe sources are detectable by MEG; and (iv) MEG is not 'more accurate' than HDEEG-emphasis is best placed on the earliest signal (whether HDEEG or MEG) amenable to source localization. Our findings challenge current practice and our reliance on invasive monitoring in these patients. 10.1093/brain/awz015_video1 awz015media1 6018582479001.