OBJECTIVE: To present a simplified approach to management of retinoblastoma using basic clinical features. DESIGN: In a prospective, nonrandomized, single-center clinical trial, 158 eyes of 103 patients with retinoblastoma were managed with 6 cycles of chemoreduction (vincristine sulfate, etoposide, and carboplatin). The eyes were classified according to the Reese-Ellsworth classification and were also grouped on the basis of clinical features as follows: group 1, tumor only; group 2, tumor plus subretinal fluid; group 3, tumor plus focal seeds (3a, focal subretinal seeds; 3b, focal vitreous seeds); group 4, tumor plus diffuse seeds (4a, diffuse subretinal seeds; 4b, diffuse vitreous seeds); and group 5, neovascular glaucoma or invasive retinoblastoma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Treatment success (avoidance of enucleation and external beam radiotherapy). RESULTS: According to the Reese-Ellsworth classification, chemoreduction was successful in 100% of group Ia, 100% of group Ib, 86% of group IIa, 100% of group IIb, 91% of group IIIa, 100% of group IIIb, 50% of group IVa, 77% of group IVb, 50% of group Va, and 27% of group Vb. There was erratic correlation of the Reese-Ellsworth classification with treatment success. In contrast, the simplified grouping system displayed a smooth, nonerratic correlation for treatment success, with 100% success for group 1, 91% for group 2, 59% for group 3, and 12% for group 4 (group 5 always managed by primary enucleation). When all 6 subcategory groups were analyzed, there was consistent correlation for treatment success of 100% for group 1, 91% for group 2, 68% for group 3a, 54% for group 3b, 17% for group 4a, and 11% for group 4b. CONCLUSION: This practical approach to retinoblastoma using basic clinical features is predictive of treatment success for eyes in which modern conservative therapy for retinoblastoma is used.
OBJECTIVE: To present a simplified approach to management of retinoblastoma using basic clinical features. DESIGN: In a prospective, nonrandomized, single-center clinical trial, 158 eyes of 103 patients with retinoblastoma were managed with 6 cycles of chemoreduction (vincristine sulfate, etoposide, and carboplatin). The eyes were classified according to the Reese-Ellsworth classification and were also grouped on the basis of clinical features as follows: group 1, tumor only; group 2, tumor plus subretinal fluid; group 3, tumor plus focal seeds (3a, focal subretinal seeds; 3b, focal vitreous seeds); group 4, tumor plus diffuse seeds (4a, diffuse subretinal seeds; 4b, diffuse vitreous seeds); and group 5, neovascular glaucoma or invasive retinoblastoma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Treatment success (avoidance of enucleation and external beam radiotherapy). RESULTS: According to the Reese-Ellsworth classification, chemoreduction was successful in 100% of group Ia, 100% of group Ib, 86% of group IIa, 100% of group IIb, 91% of group IIIa, 100% of group IIIb, 50% of group IVa, 77% of group IVb, 50% of group Va, and 27% of group Vb. There was erratic correlation of the Reese-Ellsworth classification with treatment success. In contrast, the simplified grouping system displayed a smooth, nonerratic correlation for treatment success, with 100% success for group 1, 91% for group 2, 59% for group 3, and 12% for group 4 (group 5 always managed by primary enucleation). When all 6 subcategory groups were analyzed, there was consistent correlation for treatment success of 100% for group 1, 91% for group 2, 68% for group 3a, 54% for group 3b, 17% for group 4a, and 11% for group 4b. CONCLUSION: This practical approach to retinoblastoma using basic clinical features is predictive of treatment success for eyes in which modern conservative therapy for retinoblastoma is used.
Authors: Christina Scelfo; Jasmine H Francis; Vikas Khetan; Thomas Jenkins; Brian Marr; David H Abramson; Carol L Shields; Jacob Pe'er; Francis Munier; Jesse Berry; J William Harbour; Andrey Yarovoy; Evandro Lucena; Timothy G Murray; Pooja Bhagia; Evelyn Paysse; Samuray Tuncer; Guillermo L Chantada; Annette C Moll; Tatiana Ushakova; David A Plager; Islamov Ziyovuddin; Carlos A Leal; Miguel A Materin; Xun-Da Ji; Jose W Cursino; Rodrigo Polania; Hayyam Kiratli; Charlotta All-Ericsson; Rejin Kebudi; Santosh G Honavar; Vicktoria Vishnevskia-Dai; Sidnel Epelman; Anthony B Daniels; Jeanie D Ling; Fousseyni Traore; Marco A Ramirez-Ortiz Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-06-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Aman Khurana; Christina A Eisenhut; Wenshuai Wan; Katayoon B Ebrahimi; Chirag Patel; Joan M O'Brien; Kristen Yeom; Heike E Daldrup-Link Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-11-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C L Shields; E M Fulco; J D Arias; C Alarcon; M Pellegrini; P Rishi; S Kaliki; C G Bianciotto; J A Shields Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Rachel C Brennan; Ibrahim Qaddoumi; Shenghua Mao; Jianrong Wu; Catherine A Billups; Clinton F Stewart; Mary Ellen Hoehn; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Matthew W Wilson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joo Young Shin; Jeong Hun Kim; Young Suk Yu; Sang In Khwarg; Ho Kyung Choung; Hee Young Shin; Hyo Seop Ahn Journal: Korean J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-08-03
Authors: Julia Balaguer; Matthew W Wilson; Catherine A Billups; John Mancini; Barrett G Haik; Ibrahim Qaddoumi; Joseph D Khoury; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.167