Search

Purpose: To evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes of endoresection and adjuvant ruthenium (Ru)-106 brachytherapy for uveal melanoma (UM). Methods: Retrospective case series of 15 UM patients (15 eyes) treated at our center (Careggi University Hospital, Florence). Results: Six patients (40%) were male and nine were female (60%). The mean age of patients at the time of treatment was 61.6 years (±19.41). The mean BCVA at baseline was 20/50. In all cases UM originated from the choroid. The mean tumor thickness at baseline was 7.14 mm (±2.05), and the mean largest basal diameter was 11.2 mm (±1.92). A concurrent retinal detachment was diagnosed in 11 patients (73.3%). Two patients (13.3%) showed vitreous seeding at baseline. Eleven patients (73.3%) were treated with primary endoresection, while four patients (26.7%) were treated with a "salvage endoresection" after primary treatment failure (previous radiation treatment). The mean follow-up time was 28.9 months (±10.6). Thirteen out of fifteen patients were alive and showed no evidence of local recurrence or distance metastasis at the last follow-up visit. The treatment achieved local control of the disease in 14 out of 15 cases (93.3%). In one case, the patient underwent enucleation for disease recurrence. The overall survival rate at the end of the follow-up was 93.3%. The mean BCVA at last follow-up visit was 20/40. Treatment was well tolerated, without significant complications. Conclusions: Endoresection and adjuvant Ru-106 brachytherapy is a valuable conservative option for selected UM patients and can be used both as a primary treatment and as a salvage therapy. It can control melanoma and avoid enucleation, reduce radiation-related complications, and provide tumor tissue for chromosomal analysis and prognostic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Anatomical and Functional Outcomes after Endoresection and Adjuvant Ruthenium Brachytherapy for Uveal Melanoma: A Single-Center Experience." The correction states that there was an error in the original publication, specifically regarding the data of a patient included in the series. The article has been edited with the correct data, and the authors assure that the scientific conclusions remain unaffected. The correction was approved by the Academic Editor, and the original publication has been updated. The authors of the article are Cinzia Mazzini, Giulio Vicini, Laura Di Leo, Daniela Massi, Stanislao Rizzo, and Fabrizio Giansanti. [Extracted from the article]