Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Petr Liby x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Alena Jahodová, Barbora Beňová, Martin Kudr, Petr Ježdík, Radek Janča, Anežka Bělohlávková, Petr Liby, Róbert Leško, Michal Tichý, Pavel Čelakovský and Pavel Kršek

OBJECTIVE

Resective epilepsy surgery is an established treatment method for children with focal intractable epilepsy, but the use of this method introduces the risk of postsurgical motor deficits. Electrical stimulation mapping (ESM), used to define motor areas and pathways, frequently fails in children. The authors developed and tested a novel ESM protocol in children of all age categories.

METHODS

The ESM protocol utilizes high-frequency electric cortical stimulation combined with continuous intraoperative motor-evoked potential (MEP) monitoring. The relationships between stimulation current intensity and selected presurgical and surgery-associated variables were analyzed in 66 children (aged 7 months to 18 years) undergoing 70 resective epilepsy surgeries in proximity to the motor cortex or corticospinal tracts.

RESULTS

ESM elicited MEP responses in all children. Stimulation current intensity was associated with patient age at surgery and date of surgery (F value = 6.81, p < 0.001). Increase in stimulation current intensity predicted postsurgical motor deficits (F value = 44.5, p < 0.001) without effects on patient postsurgical seizure freedom (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed ESM paradigm developed in our center represents a reliable method for preventing and predicting postsurgical motor deficits in all age groups of children. This novel ESM protocol may increase the safety and possibly also the completeness of epilepsy surgery. It could be adopted in pediatric epilepsy surgery centers.

Full access

Michal Zapotocky, Daddy Mata-Mbemba, David Sumerauer, Petr Liby, Alvaro Lassaletta, Josef Zamecnik, Lenka Krskova, Martin Kyncl, Jan Stary, Suzanne Laughlin, Anthony Arnoldo, Cynthia Hawkins, Uri Tabori, Michael D. Taylor, Eric Bouffet, Charles Raybaud and Vijay Ramaswamy

OBJECTIVE

Metastatic dissemination is a major treatment challenge and cause of death in patients with medulloblastoma. However, the influence of molecular biology on the pattern of metastatic dissemination at diagnosis is not known. In this study, the authors sought to define the location, pattern, and imaging characteristics of medulloblastoma metastases across subgroups at diagnosis.

METHODS

A consecutive cohort of patients with metastatic medulloblastoma at The Hospital for Sick Children and the University Hospital Motol, who underwent up-front MRI of the craniospinal axis, was assembled and allocated to subgroups using NanoString limited gene–expression profiling. Radiological characteristics (including location, morphology, size, diffusion restriction, and contrast enhancement) were discerned through a retrospective review.

RESULTS

Forty metastatic medulloblastomas were identified with up-front neuroimaging of the craniospinal axis: 5 sonic hedgehog (SHH), 16 Group 3, and 19 Group 4 metastases. Significant subgroup-specific differences were observed, particularly with respect to tumor location, size, and morphology. Group 3 metastases were most frequently laminar compared with a more nodular pattern in Group 4 (14 of 16 in Group 3 vs 8 of 19 in Group 4; p = 0.0004). Laminar metastases were not observed in patients with SHH medulloblastoma. Suprasellar metastases are highly specific to Group 4 (p = 0.016). Two of the 5 SHH cases had multifocal lesions in the cerebellum, raising the possibility that these were in fact synchronous primary tumors and not true metastases. A minority of patients with Group 4 metastases harbored metastatic deposits that did not enhance on MRI after contrast administration, often in patients whose primary tumor did not enhance.

CONCLUSIONS

The location, morphology, and imaging characteristics of metastatic medulloblastoma differ across molecular subgroups, with implications for diagnosis and management. This suggests that the biology of leptomeningeal dissemination differs among medulloblastoma subgroups.