» Articles » PMID: 37714408

A Randomized Trial Comparing Beam F3 and 5.5 cm Targeting in RTMS Treatment of Depression Demonstrates Similar Effectiveness

Overview
Journal Brain Stimul
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Neurology
Date 2023 Sep 15
PMID 37714408
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The Beam F3 and 5.5 cm methods are the two most common targeting strategies for localizing the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) treatment site in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) protocols. This prospective, randomized, double-blind comparative effectiveness trial assesses the clinical outcomes for these two methods in a naturalistic sample of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) undergoing clinical rTMS treatment.

Methods: 105 adult patients with MDD (mean age = 43.2; range = 18-73; 66% female) were randomized to receive rTMS to the Beam F3 (n = 58) or 5.5 cm (n = 47) target. Between group differences from pre-to post-treatment were evaluated with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) [primary outcome measure], Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), and clinician-administered Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS). Primary treatment endpoint was completion of daily treatment series.

Results: Per-protocol analyses showed no statistically significant differences on any measure between the 5.5 cm and F3 groups (all p ≥ 0.50), including percent improvement (PHQ-9: 39% vs. 39%; GAD-7: 34% vs. 27%; MADRS: 40% vs. 38%), response rate (PHQ-9: 37% vs. 43%; GAD-7: 27% vs. 30%; MADRS: 43% vs. 43%), and remission rate (PHQ-9: 22% vs. 21%; MADRS: 20% vs. 19%). Post hoc analysis of anxiety symptom change while controlling for depression severity suggested more favorable anxiolytic effects with 5.5 cm targeting (p = 0.03).

Conclusions: Similar antidepressant effects were observed with DLFPC rTMS using either the Beam F3 or 5.5 cm targeting method, supporting clinical equipoise in MDD patients with head circumference ≤ 60 cm. Comparison to MRI-based targeting and differential effects on anxiety symptoms require further investigation.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03378570.

Citing Articles

Accelerated Theta-Burst Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Ramos M, Goerigk S, Aparecida da Silva V, Cavendish B, Pinto B, Papa C JAMA Psychiatry. 2025; .

PMID: 40042840 PMC: 11883588. DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.0013.


The medial prefrontal cortex as a proposed regulatory structure in the relationship between anxiety and perceived social support: a review.

Navarro-Nolasco D, Chi-Castaneda D, Lopez-Meraz M, Beltran-Parrazal L, Morgado-Valle C BMC Psychol. 2025; 13(1):152.

PMID: 39985115 PMC: 11846332. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-025-02449-x.


Consensus review and considerations on TMS to treat depression: A comprehensive update endorsed by the National Network of Depression Centers, the Clinical TMS Society, and the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.

Trapp N, Purgianto A, Taylor J, Singh M, Oberman L, Mickey B Clin Neurophysiol. 2025; 170:206-233.

PMID: 39756350 PMC: 11825283. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2024.12.015.


More rTMS pulses or more sessions? The impact on treatment outcome for treatment resistant depression.

Oostra E, Jazdzyk P, Vis V, Dalhuisen I, Hoogendoorn A, Planting C Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2024; 151(4):485-505.

PMID: 39569643 PMC: 11884915. DOI: 10.1111/acps.13768.


Unilateral vs. bilateral DLPFC rTMS: comparative effects on depression, visual-spatial memory, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility in major depressive disorder.

Asgharian Asl F, Abbaszade S, Derakhshani H, Vaghef L, Asgharian Asl A Front Psychiatry. 2024; 15:1400414.

PMID: 39290299 PMC: 11405187. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1400414.


References
1.
Spitzer R, Kroenke K, Williams J, Lowe B . A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166(10):1092-7. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092. View

2.
Hawley C, Gale T, Sivakumaran T . Defining remission by cut off score on the MADRS: selecting the optimal value. J Affect Disord. 2002; 72(2):177-84. DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0327(01)00451-7. View

3.
Fitzgerald P, Maller J, Hoy K, Thomson R, Daskalakis Z . Exploring the optimal site for the localization of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in brain stimulation experiments. Brain Stimul. 2010; 2(4):234-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2009.03.002. View

4.
Cash R, Weigand A, Zalesky A, Siddiqi S, Downar J, Fitzgerald P . Using Brain Imaging to Improve Spatial Targeting of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2020; 90(10):689-700. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.05.033. View

5.
Carpenter L, Janicak P, Aaronson S, Boyadjis T, Brock D, Cook I . Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for major depression: a multisite, naturalistic, observational study of acute treatment outcomes in clinical practice. Depress Anxiety. 2012; 29(7):587-96. DOI: 10.1002/da.21969. View