How neurologists are viewed by their colleagues: exploring stereotypes and social representations of neurologists.

INTRODUCTION: The choice of medical specialization is influenced by various factors, including personal, educational, and interpersonal aspects. However, stereotypes and social representations (SRs) can also play a significant role in biasing the choice of a particular medical specialty. The aim of this study is to describe and understand the social representation (SR) of French Neurologist among medical peers, and factors explaining stereotypes about neurology. METHODS: A nationwide web-based survey was sent to the French medical community (students, residents, and graduated physicians) to collect sociodemographic and professional data, status, experience, and acquaintance in Neurology as well as qualitative hierarchical evocation question to assess the SR of French Neurologists. RESULTS: Overall, 367 people participated in the survey, including 112 medical students, 170 residents, and 85 graduated physicians. Only 14.3% of students listed neurology among their top 5 specialty choices, and 63.8% disagreed with the statement "I could have chosen (or I will choose) neurology after the validation of my 6th year of medical studies." Qualitative analysis revealed that the most frequently occurring words used to describe neurologists were "stroke", "complicated", "no treatment," "clinical", and "brain" and five themes corresponded to SRs of neurologist: his/her personal and professional traits (36.4% of the corpus), his/her daily practice (18.1%), the negative aspects of the neurological practice (15.3%), and the neurological pathology and daily skills (30.2%). CONCLUSION: The perception of neurologists by other physicians is nuanced. Neurologists are described as rigorous specialists, maybe excessively so but the cliché of a contemplative specialty with no effective treatment remains. The specialty and neurological patients suffer also from a reputation of complexity. Further interventions among medical students and better information are required to increase the attractiveness of our specialty.

[18F]DPA-714 PET Imaging in the Presurgical Evaluation of Patients With Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Translocator protein 18 kDa (TSPO) PET imaging is used to monitor glial activation. Recent studies have proposed TSPO PET as a marker of the epileptogenic zone (EZ) in drug-resistant focal epilepsy (DRFE). This study aims to assess the contributions of TSPO imaging using [18F]DPA-714 PET and [18F]FDG PET for localizing the EZ during presurgical assessment of DRFE, when phase 1 presurgical assessment does not provide enough information. METHODS: We compared [18F]FDG and [18F]DPA-714 PET images of 23 patients who had undergone a phase 1 presurgical assessment, using qualitative visual analysis and quantitative analysis, at both the voxel and the regional levels. PET abnormalities (increase in binding for [18F]DPA-714 vs decrease in binding for [18F]FDG) were compared with clinical hypotheses concerning the localization of the EZ based on phase 1 presurgical assessment. The additional value of [18F]DPA-714 PET imaging to [18F]FDG for refining the localization of the EZ was assessed. To strengthen the visual analysis, [18F]DPA-714 PET imaging was also reviewed by 2 experienced clinicians blind to the EZ location. RESULTS: The study included 23 patients. Visual analysis of [18F]DPA-714 PET was significantly more accurate than [18F]FDG PET to both, show anomalies (95.7% vs 56.5%, p = 0.022), and provide additional information to refine the EZ localization (65.2% vs 17.4%, p = 0.019). All 10 patients with normal [18F]FDG PET had anomalies when using [18F]DPA-714 PET. The additional value of [18F]DPA-714 PET seemed to be greater in patients with normal brain MRI or with neocortical EZ (especially if insula is involved). Regional analysis of [18F]DPA-714 and [18F]FDG PET provided similar results. However, using voxel-wise analysis, [18F]DPA-714 was more effective than [18F]FDG for unveiling clusters whose localization was more often consistent with the EZ hypothesis (87.0% vs 39.1%, p = 0.019). Nonrelevant bindings were seen in 14 of 23 patients in visual analysis and 9 patients of 23 patients in voxel-wise analysis. DISCUSSION: [18F]DPA-714 PET imaging provides valuable information for presurgical assessments of patients with DRFE. TSPO PET could become an additional tool to help to the localization of the EZ, especially in patients with negative [18F]FDG PET. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Eudract 2017-003381-27. Inclusion of the first patient: September 24, 2018. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence on the utility of [18F]DPA-714 PET compared with [18F]FDG PET in identifying the epileptic zone in patients undergoing phase 1 presurgical evaluation for intractable epilepsy.

Early identification of seizure freedom with medical treatment in patients with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and hippocampal sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis (MTLE-HS) is usually associated with a poor response to antiseizure medications. We focused on MTLE-HS patients who were seizure free on medication to: (1) determine the clinical factors associated with seizure freedom and (2) develop a machine-learning classifier to better earlier identify those patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicentric study comparing 64 medically treated seizure-free MTLE-HS patients with 200 surgically treated drug-resistant MTLE-HS patients. First, we collected medical history and seizure semiology data. Then, we developed a machine-learning classifier based on clinical data. RESULTS: Medically treated seizure-free MTLE-HS patients were seizure-free for at least 2 years, and for a median time of 7 years at last follow-up. Compared to drug-resistant MTLE-HS patients, they exhibited: an older age at epilepsy onset (22.5 vs 8.0 years, p < 0.001), a lesser rate of: febrile seizures (39.0% vs 57.5%, p = 0.035), focal aware seizures (previously referred to as aura)(56.7% vs 90.0%, p < 0.001), autonomic focal aware seizures in presence of focal aware seizure (17.6% vs 59.4%, p < 0.001), dystonic posturing of the limbs (9.8% vs 47.0%, p < 0.001), gestural (27.4% vs 94.0%, p < 0.001), oro-alimentary (32.3% vs 75.5%, p < 0.001) or verbal automatisms (12.9% vs 36.0%, p = 0.001). The classifier had a positive predictive value of 0.889, a sensitivity of 0.727, a specificity of 0.962, a negative predictive value of 0.893. CONCLUSIONS: Medically treated seizure-free MTLE-HS patients exhibit a distinct clinical profile. A classifier built with readily available clinical data can identify them accurately with excellent positive predictive value. This may help to individualize the management of MTLE-HS patients according to their expected pharmacosensitivity.