ArticleCureus2025
A Study of Dosimetric Feasibility of a New Approach of Radiosurgery for Multiple Sclerosis-Related Trigeminal Neuralgia.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesMultiple sclerosis-related trigeminal neuralgia (MS-TN) presents challenges due to multifocal demyelination and diffuse neural involvement. Conventional single-isocenter gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treats approximately 6 mm of the trigeminal nerve, which is often inadequate for MS-TN. This study evaluated the feasibility of a double-isocenter technique to expand nerve coverage to 10 mm while maintaining brainstem dose limits.
methodsA dosimetric analysis was conducted on 10 patients previously treated for trigeminal neuralgia (TN) using conventional SRS. The double-isocenter configuration involved manually positioning two isocenters of a 4 mm gamma knife collimator, with an average separation of 4.8 mm, to create a consistent dose distribution covering a 10 mm segment of the trigeminal nerve. The treatment was prescribed to the 50% isodose line. To compare the single- and double-isocenter plans, dosimetric parameters including geometric nerve coverage, maximum brainstem dose (Dmax), and brainstem volume receiving ≥10 Gy (V(10Gy)) were analyzed.
resultsReplacing the single-isocenter with a double-isocenter configuration increased the prescription dose coverage along the trigeminal nerve from approximately 6.0 mm to 10.0 mm. Although the width of the 50% prescription isodose line perpendicular to the nerve axis slightly decreased from 5.9 ± 0.3 mm to 5.6 ± 0.5 mm, it remained sufficient to encompass the trigeminal nerve, which typically measures 2 mm to 3 mm in diameter. Similarly, the higher isodose lines, particularly the 80%, became slightly narrower, decreasing from 3.8 ± 0.2 mm to 3.1 ± 0.2 mm. This narrowing was effectively offset by an increased axial coverage along the nerve, from 4.0 ± 0.2 mm to 6.2 ± 0.8 mm. The mean brainstem Dmax was 23.4±2.9 Gy for single-isocenter and 22.5±3.3 Gy for double-isocenter plans (p=0.115), showing no statistically significant difference. The mean brainstem V(10Gy) increased from 0.054±0.011 cc (single-isocenter) to 0.079±0.024 cc (double-isocenter) (p<0.003).
conclusionsThe double-isocenter technique effectively expanded nerve coverage without compromising brainstem safety, as the brainstem Dmax remained within acceptable limits. Although the increase in brainstem V(10Gy) was statistically significant, its absolute value remained well below established tolerance guidelines, suggesting that the clinical impact is likely negligible. This approach demonstrates feasibility and supports future clinical trials to evaluate efficacy and long-term outcomes in MS-TN patients.
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.