XXXX PET in localization of @entity4940 : comparison of visual and SPM analysis.

@entity1 @entity419 @entity5 @entity75 @entity6795 @entity1188 @entity4940
The sensitivity of @entity419 PET to localize epileptogenic zones in @entity4940 was evaluated by both visual assessment and statistical parametric mapping (SPM). METHODS: Twenty-nine @entity1 with @entity4940 were examined. All @entity1 showed good outcome after surgical resection (Engel class I or II). On pathologic examination, 22 @entity1 had @entity6795 , 4 had @entity5 , 1 had cortical scars, and 2 had an old @entity1188 . @entity75 were found on @entity419 PET images by both visual assessment and SPM analysis. On SPM analysis, the cutoff threshold was varied and sensitivity to find epileptogenic zones was compared. RESULTS: MRI showed structural lesions in 15 @entity1 and normal findings in 14. @entity419 PET correctly localized the epileptogenic zones in 16 @entity1 (55%) by visual assessment. The sensitivity of @entity419 PET was 36% in @entity1 without structural lesions on MRI and 73% in @entity1 with structural lesions. On SPM analysis, using an uncorrected probability value of 0.005 as the threshold, the sensitivity of SPM analysis was 66%, which was not statistically different from the sensitivity of visual assessment. The sensitivity decreased according to the decrease in probability value. CONCLUSION: @entity419 PET was sensitive in localizing epileptogenic zones by revealing hypometabolic areas in nonlesional @entity1 with @entity4940 as well as in lesional @entity1 . SPM analysis showed a comparable sensitivity to visual assessment and could be used as an aid in diagnosing epileptogenic zones in @entity4940 .
