Search

We present an epidemiologic analysis of retinoblastoma (RB) and uveal melanoma (UM) in Jordan to aid national strategies for improved ocular cancer surveillance and control. A retrospective cohort of all Jordanian patients with RB and UM diagnosed over 10 years (2011–2020). Outcome measures included incidence, demographics, and outcomes. Retinoblastoma (n = 124) was more common than UM (n = 82); there was no sex predilection for either group. The median age at diagnosis of RB was 15 months(Six and 28 months for bilateral and unilateral cases, respectively), and the mean age-adjusted incidence was 8.2 cases per-million-children per year for children aged five years or less(one per 15,620 newborn per year). Fifty-one(41%) had bilateral disease, and 18(15%) had familial disease. Ninety-six(55%) eyes were group D or E(78% were T3/T4), and the five-year survival rate was 96%. For UM, the median age at diagnosis was 45 years with an incidence of 1.39 new cases per year per one million population. All(100%) had nonfamilial unilateral disease. Seventy-three(89%) had the tumor in the choroid, and 48(58%) had an advanced tumor that had invaded the sclera or the orbit (T3/T4) tumor. Sixty-two(76%) were treated by I-125 radioactive plaque, with globe salvage in 59(95%); the five-year survival rate was 85%. In Jordan, RB is more common and has better survival than UM. RB in Jordan and Western countries is equal in terms of incidence, globe salvage, and survival. UM is less common, with lower age at diagnosis (that was associated with better survival) in Jordan than in Western countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: To analyse the prognostic factors for eye salvage for eyes with intra-ocular retinoblastoma (RB) that is resistant to systemic chemotherapy and focal therapy by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 28 eyes with intra-ocular RB that was resistant for systemic chemotherapy and focal consolidation therapy and received EBRT. Outcome measures included tumor stage at diagnosis, stage migration, type of tumor seeds, treatment modalities, eye globe salvage, metastasis, and survival. RESULTS: Most of the patients (83%) had bilateral RB, and 42% were females. All eyes were treated initially by combination of systemic chemotherapy and focal consolidation therapy. The dose of EBRT was 45 Gy. The mean follow-up was 6.5 years, and the overall eye globe salvage rate post EBRT was 46%: 67% (2/3) for group B, 71% (5/7) for group C, and 33% (6/18) for group D. Patient's gender, tumor site, laterality, and tumor stage at diagnosis were not significant prognostic factors (p> 0.05) for final outcome. The significant poor prognostic factors were tumor stage migration during systemic chemotherapy (p= 0.03) and presence of vitreous seeds at time of EBRT (p=0.001). Post EBRT complication rate was 68% (19/28) including; retinal detachment (3), vitreous hemorrhage (4), neovascular glaucoma (1), cataract (16), radiation retinopathy (2), and second malignancy (2). CONCLUSION: EBRT is an alternative for enucleation when RB is resistant to combined chemoreduction/focal consolidation therapy in absence in vitreous seeds. The known risks for EBRT are not justified for patients with unilateral RB and for those who have functional vision in the other eye. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of management in eyes with intraocular retinoblastoma (RB) that had received inadequate initial therapy (chemotherapy without focal therapy) before eventually receiving necessary consolidation therapy at a tertiary referral center. METHODS: A retrospective observational case series of 30 eyes from 26 RB patients who had initially received systemic chemotherapy as a sole therapy. The main outcome measures were demographics, laterality, International Classification of RB (ICRB), treatments, tumor control, and survival. RESULTS: The median age at diagnosis was 24 months and the median delay between time at diagnosis and time at referral to a tertiary center that has adequate focal therapy for RB was 9.5 months (range 5-20 months). Sixteen (62%) patients were monocular from enucleation of the contralateral eye. Features of ICRB Group A tumors were seen in 3 (10%) eyes, Group B in 7 (23%) eyes, Group C in 2 (7%) eyes, Group D in 16 (53%) eyes, and Group E in 2 (7%) eyes. Eighteen (69%) patients required more systemic chemotherapy (median, 4.4 cycles; range, 2-8 cycles), and 8 (26%) eyes received local chemotherapy (subtenon, intravitreal, or intra-arterial). All treated eyes received consolidation therapy as transpupillary thermotherapy and/or cryotherapy. Radioactive plaque therapy was used in 1 (3%) eye and external beam radiation therapy in 3 (10%) eyes. At a mean follow-up of 13 months (median, 11.5 months; range, 9-27 months), enucleation was avoided in 25 (83%) eyes. Two (7%) eyes were enucleated initially, and 3 (10%) were enucleated after failure of additional therapy. Twenty-three (77%) eyes did not show any viable tumor after a median of 11.5 months of follow-up after the last treatment, and 2 (7%) eyes still have residual tumor recurrences that need more consolidation focal therapy. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy alone cannot eradicate RB cells in effected eyes without combination with consolidation therapy by a multidisciplinary team to salvage the affected eye as well as its vision. Nonetheless, chemotherapy can be initiated (to keep the tumor at a less invasive stage) for patients from centers or countries where combination therapy is not available until they gain access to adequate management of RB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: The 8 th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual incorporated new changes from its 7 th edition for classifying retinoblastoma (RB). Objective: We assessed the comparative prognostic values of the 7 th and 8 th editions of the AJCC clinical (cTNM) staging manuals for RB and suggested modifications for future edition accordingly. Design: A retrospective, observational study. Setting: King Hussein Cancer Centre. Participants: A cohort of 478 patients and 565 eyes with RB. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcome measures included demographics; tumor features, AJCC cTNM stage, and eye salvage rates. The prognostic performance of the different staging systems was assessed with the concordance index (C-index) and likelihood ratio χ 2 tests. Results: The overall eye salvage rate was 65%. Stage migration occurred for 330 (48%) eyes with the AJCC Staging Manual, 8 th edition. Based on the 7 th edition AJCC staging, the eye salvage rate was 94% (n=177) for T1 tumors (98% for T1a, 93%for T1b, and 90%for T1c), 69% (n=204) for T2 tumors (73% for T2a and 62%for T2b), and 51% (n=40) for T3 tumors. Based on the 8 th edition AJCC staging, the eye salvage rate was 95% (n=139) for T1 tumors (98% for T1a and 93% for T1b), 68% (n=281) for T2 tumors (90%for T2a and 66%for T2b), and 12% (n=1) for T3 tumors. With our proposed cTNM modifications, the eye salvage rate was 94% (n=177) for T1 tumors (98%for T1a, 93%for T1b, and 90% for T1c), 66% (n=243) for T2 tumors (73% for T2a, 62% for T2b, and 55% for T2c), and 12% (n=1) for T3 tumors. As estimated by odds ratios, more advanced cTNM stage (regardless of the cTNM staging system) was significantly associated with an increased chance of treatment failure ( P < .0001). The C-index for both the 8 th edition and the proposed modifications were approximately equal, and both were higher than that of the 7 th edition. However, the proposed modifications had the highest likelihood ratio χ 2 value and the best bootstrap 95% confidence interval. Conclusions and Relevance: Our proposed modifications on the clinical TNM Staging System for RB harbor more detailed subgroup classification criteria that provides better prognostic value for eye globe salvage than the published similar (but not identical) AJCC Staging Manual, 7 th and 8 th editions, furthermore these modifications may resolve the discrepancies in the previously published different classification systems for RB., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists., (© The author(s).)