1
|
Fleury E, Pignol JP, Kiliç E, Milder M, van Rij C, Naus N, Yavuzyigitoglu S, den Toom W, Zolnay A, Spruijt K, van Vulpen M, Trnková P, Hoogeman M. Comparison of stereotactic radiotherapy and protons for uveal melanoma patients. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2024; 31:100605. [PMID: 39050744 PMCID: PMC11268348 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2024.100605] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2024] [Revised: 06/21/2024] [Accepted: 06/25/2024] [Indexed: 07/27/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary ocular malignancy. We compared fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) with proton therapy, including toxicity risks for UM patients. Materials and methods For a total of 66 UM patients from a single center, SRT dose distributions were compared to protons using the same planning CT. Fourteen dose-volume parameters were compared in 2-Gy equivalent dose per fraction (EQD2). Four toxicity profiles were evaluated: maculopathy, optic-neuropathy, visual acuity impairment (Profile I); neovascular glaucoma (Profile II); radiation-induced retinopathy (Profile III); and dry-eye syndrome (Profile IV). For Profile III, retina Mercator maps were generated to visualize the geographical location of dose differences. Results In 9/66 cases, (14 %) proton plans were superior for all dose-volume parameters. Higher T stages benefited more from protons in Profile I, especially tumors located within 3 mm or less from the optic nerve. In Profile II, only 9/66 cases resulted in a better proton plan. In Profile III, better retina volume sparing was always achievable with protons, with a larger gain for T3 tumors. In Profile IV, protons always reduced the risk of toxicity with a median RBE-weighted EQD2 reduction of 15.3 Gy. Conclusions This study reports the first side-by-side imaging-based planning comparison between protons and SRT for UM patients. Globally, while protons appear almost always better regarding the risk of optic-neuropathy, retinopathy and dry-eye syndrome, for other toxicity like neovascular glaucoma, a plan comparison is warranted. Choice would depend on the prioritization of risks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emmanuelle Fleury
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- HollandPTC, Delft, The Netherlands
| | | | - Emine Kiliç
- Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maaike Milder
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Caroline van Rij
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nicole Naus
- Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Wilhelm den Toom
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andras Zolnay
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Petra Trnková
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Medical University of Vienna, Department of Radiation Oncology, Vienna, Austria
| | - Mischa Hoogeman
- Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- HollandPTC, Delft, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tseng YH, Hsu CA, Chou YB. Comparing efficacy of charged-particle therapy with brachytherapy in treatment of uveal melanoma. Eye (Lond) 2024; 38:1882-1890. [PMID: 38565600 PMCID: PMC11226678 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-024-03035-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2023] [Revised: 02/08/2024] [Accepted: 03/11/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary ocular tumour in adults. The most used eye-preserving treatments are charged-particle therapy (CPT) and brachytherapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare efficacies and complications of these two radiotherapies. METHODS We searched EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library from January 2012 to December 2022. Two independent reviewers identified controlled studies comparing outcomes of CPT versus brachytherapy. Case series that utilize either treatment modality were also reviewed. RESULTS One hundred fifty studies met the eligibility criteria, including 2 randomized control trials, 5 controlled cohort studies, and 143 case series studies. We found significant reduction in local recurrence rate among patients treated with CPT compared to brachytherapy (Odds ratio[OR] 0.38, 95% Confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.60, p < 0.01). Analysis also showed a trend of increased risks of secondary glaucoma after CPT. No statistically significant differences were found in analyzing risks of mortality, enucleation, and cataract. CONCLUSIONS Our study suggested no difference in mortality, enucleation rate and cataract formation rate comparing the two treatments. Lower local recurrence rate and possibly higher secondary glaucoma incidence was noted among patients treated with CPT. Nevertheless, the overall level of evidence is limited, and further high-quality studies are necessary to provide a more definitive conclusion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Hsuan Tseng
- Department of Medical Education, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan
| | - Chia-An Hsu
- Department of Ophthalmology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan
| | - Yu-Bai Chou
- Department of Ophthalmology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan.
- School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
- Institute of Public Health, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Asplund E, Fili M, Pansell T, Brautaset R, Nilsson M, Stålhammar G. The prognostic implication of visual acuity at the time of uveal melanoma diagnosis. Eye (Lond) 2023; 37:2204-2211. [PMID: 36434284 PMCID: PMC10366190 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02316-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2022] [Revised: 10/15/2022] [Accepted: 11/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Visual outcomes after primary tumour treatment of uveal melanoma (UM) have been investigated repeatedly. This study evaluates the correlation between best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) before treatment with clinicopathological factors and patient survival. SUBJECTS/METHODS Pre-treatment BCVA was examined in relation to tumour dimensions and location, and survival in a retrospective cohort of 1809 patients who underwent plaque brachytherapy. BCVA was also correlated to tumour histological factors in a second cohort of 137 enucleated eyes. RESULTS The mean BCVA of the tumour eye prior to plaque brachytherapy was LogMAR 0.42 (SD 0.46). Patients with low BCVA (LogMAR ≥ 1.00) did not differ in age (p = 0.19) and had similar frequency of ciliary body involvement (p = 0.99) but had tumours with greater apical thickness (p < 0.0001), greater diameter (p < 0.0001) and shorter distance to the optic disc and fovea (p < 0.0001). There were no significant relations between low BCVA and any of 13 examined tumour histological factors at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level (p > 0.004). Patients with low BCVA had greater incidence of UM-related mortality in competing risk analysis (p = 0.0019) and shorter overall survival (p < 0.0001). Low BCVA was also associated with increased hazard ratio (HR) for UM-related mortality in univariate analysis (HR 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 1.9), but not in multivariate analysis with tumour size and location as covariates. CONCLUSIONS UM patients with low BCVA before primary tumour treatment have a worse prognosis, likely related to increased tumour dimensions. Future studies should examine the prognostic significance of BCVA in relation to macula-involving retinal detachment and genetic factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elin Asplund
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Unit of Optometry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Maria Fili
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Unit of Ocular Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- St. Erik Eye Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Tony Pansell
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Marianne Bernadotte Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Rune Brautaset
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Unit of Optometry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Maria Nilsson
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Unit of Optometry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Gustav Stålhammar
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Ophthalmology and Vision, Unit of Ocular Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
- St. Erik Eye Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hussain RN, Chiu A, Pittam B, Taktak A, Damato BE, Kacperek A, Errington D, Cauchi P, Chadha V, Connolly J, Salvi S, Rundle P, Cohen V, Arora A, Sagoo M, Bekir O, Kopsidas K, Heimann H. Proton beam radiotherapy for choroidal and ciliary body melanoma in the UK-national audit of referral patterns of 1084 cases. Eye (Lond) 2023; 37:1033-1036. [PMID: 35840716 PMCID: PMC10050435 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02178-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2022] [Revised: 07/03/2022] [Accepted: 07/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Proton beam therapy has been utilised for the treatment of uveal melanoma in the UK for over 30 years, undertaken under a single centre. In the UK, all ocular tumours are treated at one of four centres. We aimed to understand the variation in referral patterns to the UK proton service, capturing all uveal melanoma patients treated with this modality. METHODS Retrospective analysis of data regarding all patients treated at the Clatterbridge Proton service between January 2004 and December 2014. RESULTS A total of 1084 patients with uveal melanoma were treated. The mean age was 57 years (range 9-90 years), basal diameter of 11.5 mm (range 2.0-23.4 mm) and tumour thickness of 3.9 mm (range 0.1-15.4 mm). The majority were TNM stage I (39%) or II (36%). The distance to the optic nerve varied from 0 to 24.5 mm with 148 (14%) of patients having ciliary body involvement. There were variations in the phenotypic characteristic of the tumours treated with protons from different centres, with London referring predominantly small tumours at the posterior pole, Glasgow referring large tumours often at the ciliary body and Liverpool sending a mix of these groups. DISCUSSION In the UK, common indications for the use of proton treatment in uveal melanoma include small tumours in the posterior pole poorly accessible for plaque treatment (adjacent to the disc), tumours at the posterior pole affecting the fovea and large anterior tumours traditionally too large for brachytherapy. This is the first UK-wide audit enabling the capture of all patients treated at the single proton centre.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R N Hussain
- Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK.
| | - A Chiu
- Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK
| | - B Pittam
- Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK
| | - A Taktak
- Department of Eye and Vision Science and Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK
| | - B E Damato
- Ocular Oncology Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
| | - A Kacperek
- University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - D Errington
- Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Clatterbridge Road, Bebington, Wirral, CH63 4JY, UK
| | - P Cauchi
- Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
| | - V Chadha
- Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
| | - J Connolly
- Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
| | - S Salvi
- The National Sheffield Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, S10 2JF, Sheffield, UK
| | - P Rundle
- The National Sheffield Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, S10 2JF, Sheffield, UK
| | - V Cohen
- Ocular Oncology Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
| | - A Arora
- Ocular Oncology Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
| | - M Sagoo
- Ocular Oncology Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, EC1V 2PD, UK
| | - O Bekir
- Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK
| | - K Kopsidas
- The National Sheffield Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, S10 2JF, Sheffield, UK
| | - H Heimann
- Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Schneider T, Malaise D, Pouzoulet F, Prezado Y. Orthovoltage X-ray Minibeam Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Ocular Tumours-An In Silico Evaluation. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15030679. [PMID: 36765637 PMCID: PMC9913874 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15030679] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2022] [Revised: 01/16/2023] [Accepted: 01/17/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: Radiotherapeutic treatments of ocular tumors are often challenging because of nearby radiosensitive structures and the high doses required to treat radioresistant cancers such as uveal melanomas. Although increased local control rates can be obtained with advanced techniques such as proton therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery, these modalities are not always accessible to patients (due to high costs or low availability) and side effects in structures such as the lens, eyelids or anterior chamber remain an issue. Minibeam radiation therapy (MBRT) could represent a promising alternative in this regard. MBRT is an innovative new treatment approach where the irradiation field is composed of multiple sub-millimetric beamlets, spaced apart by a few millimetres. This creates a so-called spatial fractionation of the dose which, in small animal experiments, has been shown to increase normal tissue sparing while simultaneously providing high tumour control rates. Moreover, MBRT with orthovoltage X-rays could be easily implemented in widely available and comparably inexpensive irradiation platforms. (2) Methods: Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the TOPAS toolkit to evaluate orthovoltage X-ray MBRT as a potential alternative for treating ocular tumours. Dose distributions were simulated in CT images of a human head, considering six different irradiation configurations. (3) Results: The mean, peak and valley doses were assessed in a generic target region and in different organs at risk. The obtained doses were comparable to those reported in previous X-ray MBRT animal studies where good normal tissue sparing and tumour control (rat glioma models) were found. (4) Conclusions: A proof-of-concept study for the application of orthovoltage X-ray MBRT to ocular tumours was performed. The simulation results encourage the realisation of dedicated animal studies considering minibeam irradiations of the eye to specifically assess ocular and orbital toxicities as well as tumour response. If proven successful, orthovoltage X-ray minibeams could become a cost-effective treatment alternative, in particular for developing countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tim Schneider
- Institut Curie, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS UMR3347, Inserm U1021, Signalisation Radiobiologie et Cancer, 91400 Orsay, France
- Correspondence:
| | - Denis Malaise
- Department of Ophthalmology, Institut Curie, 75005 Paris, France
- LITO, INSERM U1288, Institut Curie, PSL University, 91898 Orsay, France
| | - Frédéric Pouzoulet
- LITO, INSERM U1288, Institut Curie, PSL University, 91898 Orsay, France
- Département de Recherche Translationnelle, CurieCoreTech-Experimental Radiotherapy (RadeXp), Institut Curie, PSL University, 91400 Orsay, France
| | - Yolanda Prezado
- Institut Curie, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS UMR3347, Inserm U1021, Signalisation Radiobiologie et Cancer, 91400 Orsay, France
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Fleury E, Trnková P, van Rij C, Rodrigues M, Klaver Y, Spruijt K, Naus N, Zolnay A, Pignol JP, Kiliç E, Hoogeman MS. Improving Organs-at-Risk Sparing for Choroidal Melanoma Patients: A CT-based Two-Beam Strategy in Ocular Proton Therapy with a Dedicated Eyeline. Radiother Oncol 2022; 171:173-181. [PMID: 35487435 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.04.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2022] [Revised: 04/20/2022] [Accepted: 04/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the potential clinical benefit of a two-beam arrangement technique using three-dimensional (3D) imaging of uveal melanoma (UM) patients treated with proton therapy and a dedicated eyeline. MATERIAL/METHODS Retrospective CT-based treatment plans of 39 UM patients performed using a single beam (SB) were compared to plans with two beams (TB) optimized for better trade-offs in organs-at-risk sparing. The RBE-weighted prescribed dose was 60 Gy (DRBE, GTV = 60 Gy) in four fractions, assuming an RBE of 1.1. Dosimetric findings were analyzed for three patient groups based on tumor-optic nerve distance and UM staging (group GrA: ≤ 3 mm, T1 T2 UM; GrB: ≤ 3 mm, T3 UM; GrC: > 3 mm, T1 T2 T3 UM). Finally, two schedules were compared on biologically effective dose (BED): both beams being delivered either the same day (TB) or on alternate days (TBalter). RESULTS All strategies resulted in dosimetrically acceptable plans. A dose reduction to the anterior structures was achieved in 23/39 cases with the two-beam plans. D25% was significantly lowered compared to SB plans by 12.4 and 15.4 Gy RBE-weighted median dose in GrA and GrB, respectively. D2% was reduced by 18.6 and 6.0 Gy RBE-weighted median dose in GrA and GrB, respectively. A cost to the optic nerve was observed with a median difference up to 3.8 Gy RBE-weighted dose in GrB. BED differences were statistically significant for all considered parameters in favor of two beams delivered the same day. CONCLUSION A two-beam strategy appears beneficial for posterior tumors abutting the optic nerve. This strategy might have a positive impact on the risk of ocular complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emmanuelle Fleury
- Erasmus Medical Center, Cancer Institute, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Holland Proton Therapy Center, Delft, The Netherlands.
| | - Petra Trnková
- Erasmus Medical Center, Cancer Institute, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Medical University of Vienna, Department of Radiation Oncology, Vienna, Austria
| | - Caroline van Rij
- Erasmus Medical Center, Cancer Institute, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Yvonne Klaver
- Holland Proton Therapy Center, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Kees Spruijt
- Holland Proton Therapy Center, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Nicole Naus
- Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andras Zolnay
- Erasmus Medical Center, Cancer Institute, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Emine Kiliç
- Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mischa S Hoogeman
- Erasmus Medical Center, Cancer Institute, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Holland Proton Therapy Center, Delft, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Reichstein DA, Brock AL. Radiation therapy for uveal melanoma: a review of treatment methods available in 2021. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2021; 32:183-190. [PMID: 33770014 DOI: 10.1097/icu.0000000000000761] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Radiation therapy has become the standard of care for the treatment of uveal melanoma. We intend to outline the current radiation therapy methods that are employed to treat uveal melanoma. We will outline their relative benefits over one another. We will also provide some background about radiation therapy in general to accustom the ophthalmologists likely reading this review. RECENT FINDINGS Four main options exist for radiation therapy of uveal melanoma. Because the eye is a small space, and because melanomas are relatively radioresistant, oncologists treating uveal melanoma must deliver highly focused doses in high amounts to a small space. Therapies incorporating external beams include proton beam therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery. Stereotactic radiosurgery comes in two forms, gamma knife therapy and cyberknife therapy. Radiation may also be placed directly on the eye surgically via plaque brachytherapy. All methods have been used effectively to treat uveal melanoma. SUMMARY Each particular radiotherapy technique employed to treat uveal melanoma has its own set of benefits and drawbacks. The ocular oncologist can choose amongst these therapies based upon his or her clinical judgment of the relative risks and benefits. Availability of the therapy and cost to the patient remain significant factors in the ocular oncologist's choice.
Collapse
|
8
|
Visual outcomes of proton beam therapy for choroidal melanoma at a single institute in the Republic of Korea. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0242966. [PMID: 33264363 PMCID: PMC7710050 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242966] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2020] [Accepted: 11/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
We evaluate the ocular effects of proton beam therapy (PBT) in a single institution, in Korea, and identify factors contributing to decreasing visual acuity (VA) after PBT. A total of 40 patients who received PBT for choroidal melanoma (2009‒2016) were reviewed. Dose fractionation was 60‒70 cobalt gray equivalents (CGEs) over five fractions. Complete ophthalmic examinations including funduscopy and ultrasonography were performed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months after PBT, then annually thereafter. Only patients with at least 12 months follow-up were included. During the follow-up, consecutive best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes were determined, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for VA loss. The median follow-up duration was 32 months (range: 12‒82 months). The final BCVA of nine patients was > 20/40. The main cause of vision loss was intraocular bleeding, such as neovascular glaucoma or retinal hemorrhage. Vision loss was correlated with the tumor size, tumor distance to the optic disc or fovea, maculae receiving 30 CGEs, optic discs receiving 30 CGEs, and retinas receiving 30 CGEs. Approximately one-third of PBT-treated choroidal melanoma patients with good pretreatment BCVA maintained their VA. The patients who finally lost vision (VA < count fingers) usually experienced rapid declines in VA from 6‒12 months after PBT. Tumor size, tumor distance to the optic disc or fovea, volume of the macula, and optic discs or retinas receiving 30 CGEs affected the final VA.
Collapse
|
9
|
|