ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2024
Long-Term Outcomes of Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Cerebral Cavernous Malformations: 10 Years and Beyond.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stereotactic radiosurgery in the treatment of pediatric cerebral cavernous malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and safety.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2025Pooled it
- Gamma knife radiosurgery for cerebral cavernous malformations: biologically effective dose predicts therapeutic outcomes.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of gamma knife radiosurgery (GKS) for cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs).
methodsAmong the 233 CCM patients who underwent GKS, 79 adult patients (96 lesions) followed for over 10 years were included and analyzed retrospectively. Annual hemorrhage rate (AHR) was analyzed the entire cohort of 233 patients and the subset of 79 enrolled patients by dividing lesions into overall CCM lesions and brainstem lesions. AHR, neurologic outcome, adverse radiation effect (ARE), and changes of lesions in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were compared before and after GKS. Cox-regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for hemorrhage following GKS.
resultsMean follow-up duration of 79 enrolled patients was 14 years (range, 10-23 years). The AHR of all CCMs for entire cohort at each time point was 17.8% (pre-GKS), 5.9% (≤ 2 years post-GKS), 1.8% (≤ 10 years post-GKS). The AHR of all CCM for 79 enrolled patients was 21.4% (pre-GKS), 3.8% (2 years post-GKS), 1.4% (10 years post-GKS), and 2.3% (> 10 years post-GKS). The AHR of brainstem cavernous malformation (CM) for entire cohort at each time point was 22.4% (pre-GKS), 10.1% (≤ 2 years post-GKS), 3.2% (≤ 10 years post-GKS). The AHR of brainstem CM for 79 enrolled patients was 27.2% (pre-GKS), 5.8% (2 years post-GKS), 3.4% (10 years post-GKS), and 3.5% (> 10 years post-GKS). Out of the 79 enrolled patients, 35 presented with focal neurologic deficits at the initial clinical visit. Among these patients, 74.3% showed recovery at the last follow-up. Symptomatic ARE occurred in five (6.4%) patients. No mortality occurred. Most lesions were decreased in size at the last follow-up MRI. Previous hemorrhage history (hazard ratio [HR], 8.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-65.88;
conclusionGKS for CCM showed favorable long-term outcomes. GKS should be considered for CCM, especially when it has a previous hemorrhage history and brainstem location.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.