SNO and EANO practice guideline update: Anticonvulsant prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed brain tumors.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2000 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on anticonvulsant prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed brain tumors. METHODS: Following the 2017 AAN methodologies, a systematic literature review utilizing PubMed, EMBASE Library, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was performed. The studies were rated based on the AAN therapeutic or causation classification of evidence (class I-IV). RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles were selected for final analysis. There were limited high-level, class I studies and mostly class II and III studies. The AAN affirmed the value of these guidelines. RECOMMENDATIONS: In patients with newly diagnosed brain tumors who have not had a seizure, clinicians should not prescribe antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) to reduce the risk of seizures (level A). In brain tumor patients undergoing surgery, there is insufficient evidence to recommend prescribing AEDs to reduce the risk of seizures in the peri- or postoperative period (level C). There is insufficient evidence to support prescribing valproic acid or levetiracetam with the intent to prolong progression-free or overall survival (level C). Physicians may consider the use of levetiracetam over older AEDs to reduce side effects (level C). There is insufficient evidence to support using tumor location, histology, grade, molecular/imaging features when deciding whether or not to prescribe prophylactic AEDs (level U).

Use of the train-of-five bipolar technique to provide reliable, spatially accurate motor cortex identification in asleep patients.

OBJECTIVE: Intraoperative cortical and subcortical mapping techniques have become integral for achieving a maximal safe resection of tumors that are in or near regions of eloquent brain. The recent literature has demonstrated successful motor/language mapping with lower rates of stimulation-induced seizures when using monopolar high-frequency stimulation compared to traditional low-frequency bipolar stimulation mapping. However, monopolar stimulation carries with it disadvantages that include more radiant spread of electrical stimulation and a theoretically higher potential for tissue damage. The authors report on the successful use of bipolar stimulation with a high-frequency train-of-five (TOF) pulse physiology for motor mapping. METHODS: Between 2018 and 2019, 13 patients underwent motor mapping with phase-reversal and both low-frequency and high-frequency bipolar stimulation. A retrospective chart review was conducted to determine the success rate of motor mapping and to acquire intraoperative details. RESULTS: Thirteen patients underwent both high- and low-frequency bipolar motor mapping to aid in tumor resection. Of the lesions treated, 69% were gliomas, and the remainder were metastases. The motor cortex was identified at a significantly greater rate when using high-frequency TOF bipolar stimulation (n = 13) compared to the low-frequency bipolar stimulation (n = 4) (100% vs 31%, respectively; p = 0.0005). Intraoperative seizures and afterdischarges occurred only in the group of patients who underwent low-frequency bipolar stimulation, and none occurred in the TOF group (31% vs 0%, respectively; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Using a bipolar wand with high-frequency TOF stimulation, the authors achieved a significantly higher rate of successful motor mapping and a low rate of intraoperative seizure compared to traditional low-frequency bipolar stimulation. This preliminary study suggests that high-frequency TOF stimulation provides a reliable additional tool for motor cortex identification in asleep patients.

Bilateral intracranial electrodes for lateralizing intractable epilepsy: efficacy, risk, and outcome.

OBJECTIVE: Medically refractory epilepsy is amenable to neurosurgical intervention if the epileptogenic focus is accurately localized. If the scalp video-electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetic resonance imaging are nonlateralizing, yet a single focus is suspected, video-EEG monitoring with bilateral intracranial electrode placement is helpful to lateralize the ictal onset zone. We describe the indications, risks, and utility of such bilateral surveys at our institution. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 26 patients with medically refractory seizures who were treated over a 5-year period and underwent bilateral placement of intracranial electrodes. Subdural strips were used in all cases, and additional stereotactic implantation of depth electrodes into mesial temporal lobes occurred in 50%. The mean patient age was 37.7 years, and 65.4% of patients were male. RESULTS: The most common indication for bilateral invasive monitoring was bilateral ictal onsets on surface video-EEG (76.9%), followed by frequent interictal spikes contralateral to a single ictal focus (7.7%). Intracranial monitoring lasted an average of 8.2 days, with ictal events recorded in all cases. Ten patients (38.5%) subsequently underwent more extensive unilateral monitoring via implantation of subdural and depth electrodes through a craniotomy. A therapeutic procedure was performed in 17 patients (65.4%), whereas 1 patient underwent a palliative corpus callosotomy (3.8%). Nine patients underwent a resection without unilateral invasive mapping. Reasons for no therapeutic surgery (n = 8) included multifocal onsets, failing the Wada test, refusal of further treatment, and negative intraoperative electrocorticogram. There was 1 surgical complication, involving a retained electrode fragment that was removed in a separate minor procedure. Of the 26 patients, 15 (57.7%) are now seizure-free or have seizure disorders that have substantially improved (modified Engel classes I and II). Of the 17 patients who underwent a potentially curative surgery, 13 (76.5%) were Engel classes I and II. CONCLUSION: Bilateral placement of subdural strip and depth electrodes for epilepsy monitoring in patients with nonlateralizing scalp EEG and/or discordant imaging studies but clinical suspicion for focal seizure origin is both safe and effective. Given the safety and efficacy of this procedure, epileptologists should have a low threshold to consider bilateral implants for suitable patients.