Tatum, William O.

Join the Journal of Neuro-Oncology Editor in Chief, Dr. Jason Sheehan, and Associate Editor, Dr. Randy D'Amico, for a conversation with Dr. Brin Freund, Dr. William Tatum, and Dr. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa from the Mayo Clinic Florida to discuss their latest publication on the enhanced sensitivity of electrocorticography during awake craniotomy using a novel circular grid electrode.

AbstractObjectiveWe published a list of “must‐know” routine EEG (rEEG) findings for trainees based on expert opinion. Here, we studied the accuracy and inter‐rater agreement (IRA) of these “must‐know” rEEG findings among international experts.MethodsA previously validated online rEEG examination was disseminated to EEG experts. It consisted of a survey and 30 multiple‐choice questions predicated on the previously published “must‐know” rEEG findings divided into four domains: normal, abnormal, normal variants, and artifacts. Questions contained de‐identified 10–20‐s epochs of EEG that were considered unequivocal examples by five EEG experts.ResultsThe examination was completed by 258 international EEG experts. Overall mean accuracy and IRA (AC1) were 81% and substantial (0.632), respectively. The domain‐specific mean accuracies and IRA were: 76%, moderate (0.558) (normal); 78%, moderate (0.575) (abnormal); 85%, substantial (0.678) (normal variants); 85%, substantial (0.740) (artifacts). Academic experts had a higher accuracy than private practice experts (82% vs. 77%; p = .035). Country‐specific overall mean accuracies and IRA were: 92%, almost perfect (0.836) (U.S.); 86%, substantial (0.762) (Brazil); 79%, substantial (0.646) (Italy); and 72%, moderate (0.496) (India). In conclusion, collective expert accuracy and IRA of “must‐know” rEEG findings are suboptimal and heterogeneous.SignificanceWe recommend the development and implementation of pragmatic, accessible, country‐specific ways to measure and improve the expert accuracy and IRA.

Abstract Tumor-related epilepsy (TRE) is a frequent and major consequence of brain tumors. Management of TRE is required throughout the course of disease and a deep understanding of diagnosis and treatment is key to improving quality of life. Gross total resection is favored from both an oncologic and epilepsy perspective. Shared mechanisms of tumor growth and epilepsy exist, and emerging data will provide better targeted therapy options. Initial treatment with antiseizure medications (ASM) in conjunction with surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy is typical. The first choice of ASM is critical to optimize seizure control and tolerability considering the effects of the tumor itself. These agents carry a potential for drug–drug interactions and therefore knowledge of mechanisms of action and interactions is needed. A review of adverse effects is necessary to guide ASM adjustments and decision-making. This review highlights the essential aspects of diagnosis and treatment of TRE with ASMs, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy while indicating areas of uncertainty. Future studies should consider the use of a standardized method of seizure tracking and incorporating seizure outcomes as a primary endpoint of tumor treatment trials.

Importance Electroencephalograms (EEGs) are a fundamental evaluation in neurology but require special expertise unavailable in many regions of the world. Artificial intelligence (AI) has a potential for addressing these unmet needs. Previous AI models address only limited aspects of EEG interpretation such as distinguishing abnormal from normal or identifying epileptiform activity. A comprehensive, fully automated interpretation of routine EEG based on AI suitable for clinical practice is needed. Objective To develop and validate an AI model (Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG–Artificial Intelligence [SCORE-AI]) with the ability to distinguish abnormal from normal EEG recordings and to classify abnormal EEG recordings into categories relevant for clinical decision-making: epileptiform-focal, epileptiform-generalized, nonepileptiform-focal, and nonepileptiform-diffuse. Design, Setting, and Participants In this multicenter diagnostic accuracy study, a convolutional neural network model, SCORE-AI, was developed and validated using EEGs recorded between 2014 and 2020. Data were analyzed from January 17, 2022, until November 14, 2022. A total of 30 493 recordings of patients referred for EEG were included into the development data set annotated by 17 experts. Patients aged more than 3 months and not critically ill were eligible. The SCORE-AI was validated using 3 independent test data sets: a multicenter data set of 100 representative EEGs evaluated by 11 experts, a single-center data set of 9785 EEGs evaluated by 14 experts, and for benchmarking with previously published AI models, a data set of 60 EEGs with external reference standard. No patients who met eligibility criteria were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared with the experts and the external reference standard of patients’ habitual clinical episodes obtained during video-EEG recording. Results The characteristics of the EEG data sets include development data set (N = 30 493; 14 980 men; median age, 25.3 years [95% CI, 1.3-76.2 years]), multicenter test data set (N = 100; 61 men, median age, 25.8 years [95% CI, 4.1-85.5 years]), single-center test data set (N = 9785; 5168 men; median age, 35.4 years [95% CI, 0.6-87.4 years]), and test data set with external reference standard (N = 60; 27 men; median age, 36 years [95% CI, 3-75 years]). The SCORE-AI achieved high accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between 0.89 and 0.96 for the different categories of EEG abnormalities, and performance similar to human experts. Benchmarking against 3 previously published AI models was limited to comparing detection of epileptiform abnormalities. The accuracy of SCORE-AI (88.3%; 95% CI, 79.2%-94.9%) was significantly higher than the 3 previously published models ( P < .001) and similar to human experts. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, SCORE-AI achieved human expert level performance in fully automated interpretation of routine EEGs. Application of SCORE-AI may improve diagnosis and patient care in underserved areas and improve efficiency and consistency in specialized epilepsy centers.

AbstractBackground and purposeCerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a common cause of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), which is a risk factor for seizures. The incidence and risk factors of seizures associated with a heterogeneous cohort of CAA patients have not been studied.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study of patients with CAA treated at Mayo Clinic Florida between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2021. CAA was defined using the modified Boston criteria version 2.0. We analyzed electrophysiological and clinical features, and comorbidities including lobar ICH, nontraumatic cortical/convexity subarachnoid hemorrhage (cSAH), superficial siderosis, and inflammation (CAA with inflammation [CAA‐ri]). Cognition and mortality were secondary outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk of seizures relative to clinical presentation.ResultsTwo hundred eighty‐four patients with CAA were identified, with median follow‐up of 35.7 months (interquartile range = 13.5–61.3 months). Fifty‐six patients (19.7%) had seizures; in 21 (37.5%) patients, seizures were the index feature leading to CAA diagnosis. Seizures were more frequent in females (p = 0.032) and patients with lobar ICH (p = 0.002), cSAH (p = 0.030), superficial siderosis (p < 0.001), and CAA‐ri (p = 0.005), and less common in patients with microhemorrhage (p = 0.006). After controlling for age and sex, lobar ICH (odds ratio [OR] = 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1–4.2), CAA‐ri (OR = 3.8, 95% CI = 1.4–10.3), and superficial siderosis (OR = 3.7, 95% CI = 1.9–7.0) were independently associated with higher odds of incident seizures.ConclusionsSeizures are common in patients with CAA and are independently associated with lobar ICH, CAA‐ri, and superficial siderosis. Our results may be applied to optimize clinical monitoring and management for patients with CAA.