Kannan Mageshraja, Saminathan Sathiyan, Prasobh C, Gupta Aditya, Arumugam Karuppusamy, Bhaskar Nithin, Chandraraj Varatharaj, Shwetha B, Ganesh K M
Department of Radiation Physics, Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, India.
Department of Radiotherapy, Artemis Hospital, Gurugram, Haryana, India.
Radiol Phys Technol. 2025 Sep;18(3):812-820. doi: 10.1007/s12194-025-00935-w. Epub 2025 Jul 14.
Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is characterized by severe facial pain and is treated with medications, surgery, percutaneous procedures, and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). The Gamma Knife (GK) has historically been the gold standard for SRS in TN, with alternatives such as the CyberKnife (CK) and standard linear accelerator (LA) having recently emerged. This study compared GK, CK, and LA treatments for TN via dosimetric analysis. Twenty patients (10 right- and 10 left-sided) with TN were planned in the three modalities. Dosimetric parameters, including D, D, D, D, D, D, D, and V, were evaluated. The statistical significance was assessed using paired t tests. The CK and LA plans achieved a 60 Gy target coverage comparable to the GK plan. The GK plan exhibited superior brain stem sparing and lower V compared with CK (p = 0.0013) and LA (p = 0.0001). Significant differences in D, D, D, D, and D were observed between GK and CK (p < 0.05) and GK and LA (p < 0.05), but not for the CK-LA comparisons. The brain stem dose parameters (D, D, and D) were significantly lower in the GK plan (p < 0.05). The GK exhibited better normal tissue sparing and brain stem dose distribution than CK and LA, attributable partly to its higher beam count. CK and LA require more intricate planning times. Despite the established efficacy of GK, CK and LA offer viable alternatives, underscoring the need for further research on the clinical outcomes of TN treatment in the respective modalities.
三叉神经痛(TN)的特点是面部剧痛,其治疗方法包括药物治疗、手术、经皮治疗和立体定向放射外科治疗(SRS)。历史上,伽玛刀(GK)一直是TN的SRS黄金标准,最近出现了如射波刀(CK)和标准直线加速器(LA)等替代方案。本研究通过剂量分析比较了GK、CK和LA治疗TN的效果。对20例TN患者(10例右侧和10例左侧)进行了三种治疗方式的规划。评估了包括D、D、D、D、D、D、D和V在内的剂量参数。使用配对t检验评估统计学意义。CK和LA计划实现的60 Gy靶区覆盖与GK计划相当。与CK(p = 0.0013)和LA(p = 0.0001)相比,GK计划在保护脑干方面表现更优且V更低。在GK与CK(p < 0.05)以及GK与LA(p < 0.05)之间观察到D、D、D、D和D存在显著差异,但CK与LA的比较未显示差异。GK计划中的脑干剂量参数(D、D和D)显著更低(p < 0.05)。GK在正常组织保护和脑干剂量分布方面比CK和LA更好,部分原因是其射束数量更多。CK和LA需要更复杂的规划时间。尽管GK已证实有效,但CK和LA提供了可行的替代方案,这凸显了对各自治疗方式下TN治疗临床结果进行进一步研究的必要性。