Rebecca Emily Feldman1, Bradley Neil Delman2, Hadrien A Dyvorne1, Jiyeoun Yoo3, Madeline Cara Fields3, Lara Vanessa Marcuse3, and Priti Balchandani1
1Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States, 2Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States, 3Neurology, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, United States
Synopsis
Epilepsy affects over 150,000
people in the United States. Thirty percent of epilepsy is refractory to
pharmacotherapy, and in these cases surgery may be curative. There are focal
epileptogenic lesions, amenable to surgery, which are not visualized by current
imaging protocols. 7T MRI scanners may increase the conspicuity of epileptogenic
lesions and provide more accurate delineation of lesion boundaries. Reported are the results for
a patient study, with comparison to healthy controls, to assess the value of 7T
imaging to reveal subtle abnormalities acting as epileptogenic foci in patients
with focal epilepsy who have non-lesional diagnostic MRI scans. Introduction
Epilepsy affects over 150,000
people in the United States. Thirty percent of epilepsy is refractory to
pharmacotherapy [1]. Surgical intervention in refractory epilepsy is frequently
curative and visualization of epileptogenic lesions using MRI is correlated to
successful surgical outcomes [2]. MRI-negative (MRI-) epilepsy
patients, those who do not have an identifiable lesion on MRI, are less likely
to be considered candidates for surgery and have inferior outcomes when
compared to MRI-positive (MRI+) patients [3]. However, post-surgical
analysis of resected tissue has shown that a fully resected focal lesion,
identified by histology, is a good predictor of an eventual determination of
surgical success, even if the subject was referred to surgery as MRI-
[4]. This suggests that there are focal epileptogenic lesions, amenable to
surgery, which are not visualized by current imaging protocols.
Ultra-high field MRI scanners,
such as those operating at 7 Tesla (7T), can offer higher signal to noise ratio
(SNR) and enhanced contrast which may be used to improve the resolution of images in order to increase the
conspicuity of epileptogenic lesions and provide more accurate delineation of
lesion boundaries. We previously reported the results of preliminary case
studies, evaluating the feasibility of using 7T imaging to improve lesion
detection in epilepsy patients who were non-lesional in their diagnostic scans [5].
Here, we report results for a larger patient study, with comparison to healthy
controls, to assess the value of 7T imaging to reveal subtle abnormalities
acting as epileptogenic foci in patients with focal epilepsy who have
non-lesional diagnostic MRI scans.
Methods
17 healthy controls (12 male, ages 20-56 years) and 20 epilepsy patients (14 male,
ages 20-57 years) with previous normal MRI scans were recruited for the 7T
imaging study. Each subject had
indications of focal epilepsy, identified through semiology and EEG, of unknown
etiology with no record of family history, traumatic brain injury, brain
infection, or febrile incident. The images were acquired on a 7T MAGNETOM
scanner (Siemens, Erlangen) using a 32-channel receive Nova Medical head coil.
The MRI protocol consisted of: A) 4 sequences acquired at a coronal oblique
angle perpendicular to the hippocampus: MP-RAGE (TR 3000 ms, TI
1050 ms , TE 2 ms, voxel
0.7x0.7x0.7 mm
3), MP2RAGE [6] (TR 6000 ms, TI1 1050 ms , TI2 3000 ms, TE 5.1 ms,
voxel 0.8x0.8x0.8 mm
3), T
2 TSE (TR 6000 ms, TE 69 ms,
voxel 0.4x0.4x2.0 mm
3), and FLAIR (TR 9000 ms, TI 2600 ms, TE 123
ms, voxel 0.7x0.7x3 mm
3); and B) 2 sequences acquired axially:
Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) (TR 23 ms, TE 14 ms, voxel 0.21x0.21x1.5
mm
3), and T
2 TSE (TR 6000 ms, TE 69 ms, voxel 0.4x0.4x2.0
mm
3). The 7T images were inspected by an experienced
neuroradiologist, and abnormalities were reported to the patient's referring
epileptologist. The relationship of the subject's epilepsy to the results of
the 7T scan were classified into 4 categories: Definite, possible, uncertain,
and none.
Discussion/Results
The 7T imaging protocol enabled the detection of 13 potentially
epileptogenic abnormalities that were undetectable or overlooked at lower field
strength. Seven of the lesions did not co-localize to the suspected seizure
onset zone and were categorized with an uncertain relationship to the patient's
epilepsy. Six lesions did co- localize to the known seizure onset zone and two
of these abnormal findings were definitely related to the subject's epilepsy
and contributed directly to subsequent surgical intervention and improved
patient prognosis. The remaining four are possibly related to the subject's
epilepsy and are under further investigation.
A range of structural and vascular abnormalities were found in the 7T
images of epilepsy patients including hippocampal asymmetry (n=5), hippocampal architecture
disruption (n = 2) (Figure 1), bilaterally small hippocampi (n=1), cavernoma
(n=3) (Figure 2), developmental venous anomalies (n=4), and a polymicrogyria
(n=1) (Figure 3). Abnormalities were also detected in healthy controls, but
found to be less numerous extensive and not clinically significant. The
frequency with which abnormal findings occurred in both control subjects and
patients with epilepsy is provided in Figure 4).
The improved resolution and contrast offered by 7T MRI revealed several
subtle structural features that were undetectable at lower field strengths and
aided in the localization of epileptogenic foci in previously non-lesional
patients. Studying the full set of abnormalities associated with epilepsy when
compared to healthy controls may also impart valuable new insights into the
etiology of the disease.
Acknowledgements
NIH-NINDS R00 NS070821, Icahn
School of Medicine Capital Campaign, Translational and Molecular Imaging
Institute and Department of Radiology, Siemens HealthcareReferences
[1] Kwan P, et al. (2000) N Engl
J Med 342:314-9 [2] So El.
(2002) Mayo Clin Proc 77:1251-64 [3] Berg AT, et al. (2003) Epilepsia 44:1425-33 [4] Bien CG, et al. (2009) Arch Neurol 66:1491-9
[5] Feldman, et al. (2015) Proc 23rd
ISMRM Toronto #0755 [6] Marques JP, et al. (2010) Neuroimage 49:1271-81