Concordance Between Routine Interictal Magnetoencephalography and Simultaneous Scalp Electroencephalography in a Sample of Patients with Epilepsy

Overview

Journal J Clin Neurophysiol

Specialties Neurology
Physiology

Date 2007 Jun 5

PMID 17545825

Citations 8

Authors

Heidi E Kirsch

Mary Mantle

Srikantan S Nagarajan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Both electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) localize epileptiform activity but may yield different results. This discordance may arise from different detection capabilities or from different data collection and interpretation techniques. Comparisons of MEG and EEG have focused on detection of individual spikes. However, side-by-side comparisons of results as used in the clinical setting is lacking. In this report, we present our empirical comparison. We reviewed 58 simultaneous MEG-EEG recordings (35 paired-sensors, 23 whole-head) from a diverse epilepsy population, comparing previous clinical MEG interpretations with new blinded EEG interpretations, noting lobar concordance of readers' judgments of regional abnormalities. A second-pass unblinded analysis, using all available clinical data, assessed the relative contribution and plausibility of the results of each technique. Concordance was high (85%) overall. Discordance was sometimes caused by constraints imposed by MEG dipole fitting techniques. Even when results of the techniques did not match, MEG often disambiguated the clinical scenario, especially when combined with imaging information. Thoughtful analysis of combined MEG-EEG datasets, beyond algorithm-based interictal spike detection, can help guide clinical decision-making even when concordance between techniques is imperfect. In some cases, EEG and MEG are synergistic and provide complementary information.

Citing Articles

A Review of Issues Related to Data Acquisition and Analysis in EEG/MEG Studies.

Puce A, Hamalainen M Brain Sci. 2017; 7(6).

PMID: 28561761 PMC: 5483631. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci7060058.

Incidence and impact of subclinical epileptiform activity in Alzheimer's disease.

Vossel K, Ranasinghe K, Beagle A, Mizuiri D, Honma S, Dowling A Ann Neurol. 2016; 80(6):858-870.

PMID: 27696483 PMC: 5177487. DOI: 10.1002/ana.24794.

The sensitivity and significance of lateralized interictal slow activity on magnetoencephalography in focal epilepsy.

Englot D, Nagarajan S, Wang D, Rolston J, Mizuiri D, Honma S Epilepsy Res. 2016; 121:21-8.

PMID: 26871959 PMC: 4769925. DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2016.01.009.

Epileptogenic zone localization using magnetoencephalography predicts seizure freedom in epilepsy surgery.

Englot D, Nagarajan S, Imber B, Raygor K, Honma S, Mizuiri D Epilepsia. 2015; 56(6):949-58.

PMID: 25921215 PMC: 4457690. DOI: 10.1111/epi.13002.

Interictal MEG/MSI in intractable mesial temporal lobe epilepsy: spike yield and characterization.

Kaiboriboon K, Nagarajan S, Mantle M, Kirsch H Clin Neurophysiol. 2010; 121(3):325-31.

PMID: 20064741 PMC: 2821956. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.12.001.

References

Homan R, Herman J, Purdy P . Cerebral location of international 10-20 system electrode placement. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987; 66(4):376-82. DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(87)90206-9. View

Baumgartner C . Controversies in clinical neurophysiology. MEG is superior to EEG in the localization of interictal epileptiform activity: Con. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 115(5):1010-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2003.12.010. View

Barkley G, Baumgartner C . MEG and EEG in epilepsy. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2003; 20(3):163-78. DOI: 10.1097/00004691-200305000-00002. View

Yoshinaga H, Nakahori T, Ohtsuka Y, Oka E, Kitamura Y, Kiriyama H . Benefit of simultaneous recording of EEG and MEG in dipole localization. Epilepsia. 2002; 43(8):924-8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2002.42901.x. View

Knake S, Halgren E, Shiraishi H, Hara K, Hamer H, Grant P . The value of multichannel MEG and EEG in the presurgical evaluation of 70 epilepsy patients. Epilepsy Res. 2006; 69(1):80-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2006.01.001. View

Minassian B, Otsubo H, Weiss S, Elliott I, Rutka J, Snead 3rd O . Magnetoencephalographic localization in pediatric epilepsy surgery: comparison with invasive intracranial electroencephalography. Ann Neurol. 1999; 46(4):627-33. DOI: 10.1002/1531-8249(199910)46:4<627::aid-ana11>3.0.co;2-c. View

Tanaka N, Kamada K, Takeuchi F, Takeda Y . Magnetoencephalographic analysis of secondary bilateral synchrony. J Neuroimaging. 2004; 15(1):89-91. DOI: 10.1177/1051228404271007. View

. Proposal for revised classification of epilepsies and epileptic syndromes. Commission on Classification and Terminology of the International League Against Epilepsy. Epilepsia. 1989; 30(4):389-99. DOI: 10.1111/j.1528-1157.1989.tb05316.x. View

Klem G, Luders H, JASPER H, Elger C . The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1999; 52:3-6. View

10.

Lin Y, Shih Y, Hsieh J, Yu H, Yiu C, Wong T . Magnetoencephalographic yield of interictal spikes in temporal lobe epilepsy. Comparison with scalp EEG recordings. Neuroimage. 2003; 19(3):1115-26. DOI: 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00181-2. View

11.

Lesser R . MEG: good enough. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 115(5):995-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2003.12.012. View

12.

Bast T, Ramantani G, Boppel T, Metzke T, Ozkan O, Stippich C . Source analysis of interictal spikes in polymicrogyria: loss of relevant cortical fissures requires simultaneous EEG to avoid MEG misinterpretation. Neuroimage. 2005; 25(4):1232-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.059. View

13.

Scheler G, Fischer M, Genow A, Hummel C, Rampp S, Paulini A . Spatial relationship of source localizations in patients with focal epilepsy: Comparison of MEG and EEG with a three spherical shells and a boundary element volume conductor model. Hum Brain Mapp. 2006; 28(4):315-22. PMC: 6871383. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.20277. View

14.

Stefan H, Hummel C, Scheler G, Genow A, Druschky K, Tilz C . Magnetic brain source imaging of focal epileptic activity: a synopsis of 455 cases. Brain. 2003; 126(Pt 11):2396-405. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awg239. View

15.

Oishi M, Otsubo H, Kameyama S, Morota N, Masuda H, Kitayama M . Epileptic spikes: magnetoencephalography versus simultaneous electrocorticography. Epilepsia. 2002; 43(11):1390-5. DOI: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2002.10702.x. View

16.

Fuchs M, Wagner M, Wischmann H, Kohler T, Theissen A, Drenckhahn R . Improving source reconstructions by combining bioelectric and biomagnetic data. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998; 107(2):93-111. DOI: 10.1016/s0013-4694(98)00046-7. View

17.

Rodin E, Funke M, Berg P, Matsuo F . Magnetoencephalographic spikes not detected by conventional electroencephalography. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 115(9):2041-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.04.002. View

18.

Nakasato N, Levesque M, Barth D, Baumgartner C, Rogers R, Sutherling W . Comparisons of MEG, EEG, and ECoG source localization in neocortical partial epilepsy in humans. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994; 91(3):171-8. DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(94)90067-1. View