Radiosurgery versus open surgery for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy: The randomized, controlled ROSE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) versus anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) for patients with pharmacoresistant unilateral mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE). METHODS: This randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial recruited adults eligible for open surgery among 14 centers in the USA, UK, and India. Treatment was either SRS at 24 Gy to the 50% isodose targeting mesial structures, or standardized ATL. Outcomes were seizure remission (absence of disabling seizures between 25 and 36 months), verbal memory (VM), and quality of life (QOL) at 36-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients (31 in SRS, 27 in ATL) were treated. Sixteen (52%) SRS and 21 (78%) ATL patients achieved seizure remission (difference between ATL and SRS = 26%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval = 46%, P value at the 15% noninferiority margin = .82). Mean VM changes from baseline for 21 English-speaking, dominant-hemisphere patients did not differ between groups; consistent worsening occurred in 36% of SRS and 57% of ATL patients. QOL improved with seizure remission. Adverse events were anticipated cerebral edema and related symptoms for some SRS patients, and cerebritis, subdural hematoma, and others for ATL patients. SIGNIFICANCE: These data suggest that ATL has an advantage over SRS in terms of proportion of seizure remission, and both SRS and ATL appear to have effectiveness and reasonable safety as treatments for MTLE. SRS is an alternative to ATL for patients with contraindications for or with reluctance to undergo open surgery.

Cross-country measures for monitoring epilepsy care.

PURPOSE: The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission on Healthcare Policy in consultation with the World Health Organization (WHO) examined the applicability and usefulness of various measures for monitoring epilepsy healthcare services and systems across countries. The goal is to provide planners and policymakers with tools to analyze the impact of healthcare services and systems and evaluate efforts to improve performance. METHODS: Commission members conducted a systematic literature review and consulted with experts to assess the nature, strengths, and limitations of the treatment gap and resource availability measures that are currently used to assess the adequacy of epilepsy care. We also conducted a pilot study to determine the feasibility and applicability of using new measures to assess epilepsy care developed by the WHO including Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), responsiveness, and financial fairness. RESULTS: The existing measures that are frequently used to assess the adequacy of epilepsy care focus on structural or process factors whose relationship to outcomes are indirect and may vary across regions. The WHO measures are conceptually superior because of their breadth and connection to articulated and agreed upon outcomes for health systems. However, the WHO measures require data that are not readily available in developing countries and most developed countries as well. CONCLUSION: The epilepsy field should consider adopting the WHO measures in country assessments of epilepsy burden and healthcare performance whenever data permit. Efforts should be made to develop the data elements to estimate the measures.