Laura Hope-Stone1,2, Stephen L Brown3, Heinrich Heimann4, Bertil Damato4,5. 1. Institute of Psychology, Health & Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK. ldhs@liverpool.ac.uk. 2. Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital, NHS Trust, Prescot St, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK. ldhs@liverpool.ac.uk. 3. Institute of Psychology, Health & Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK. 4. Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital, NHS Trust, Prescot St, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK. 5. Ocular Oncology Service, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0730, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uveal melanomas affect 2-8 per million Europeans each year. Approximately 35%, are treated by enucleation. Proton beam radiotherapy (PBR) can be an eye-conserving alternative to enucleation for patients who wish to retain the eye. Both treatments have adverse effects, and it is difficult for clinicians and patients to make fully informed choices between them because the relative effects of enucleation and PBR on patient-reported outcomes are unknown. METHODS: We compared differential effects of enucleation and PBR on patient-reported outcomes on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Ophthalmological module (EORTC QLQ- OPT30) in a consecutive sample of 115 treated patients ~ 6, 12 and 24 months after diagnosis. Pre-treatment demographic variables, unrelated health problems, vision in the fellow eye, tumour characteristics and prognosis for metastatic disease were statistically controlled. RESULTS: Patients treated by enucleation experienced greater functional problems at 6 months, which abated at 12 and 24 months (P = 0.020). PBR patients reported greater impairments of central and peripheral vision (P = 0.009) and reading difficulties (P = 0.002) over 24 months. Treatment modality did not influence difficulty in driving (P = 0.694), ocular irritation (P = 0.281), headaches (P = 0.640), appearance concerns (P = 0.187) or worry about recurrence (P = 0.899). CONCLUSIONS: When making treatment decisions, it is important that patients and clinicians consider long-standing difficulties of visual impairment associated with PBR and temporary 6-month difficulties in activities related to depth perception associated with enucleation.
BACKGROUND:Uveal melanomas affect 2-8 per million Europeans each year. Approximately 35%, are treated by enucleation. Proton beam radiotherapy (PBR) can be an eye-conserving alternative to enucleation for patients who wish to retain the eye. Both treatments have adverse effects, and it is difficult for clinicians and patients to make fully informed choices between them because the relative effects of enucleation and PBR on patient-reported outcomes are unknown. METHODS: We compared differential effects of enucleation and PBR on patient-reported outcomes on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Ophthalmological module (EORTC QLQ- OPT30) in a consecutive sample of 115 treated patients ~ 6, 12 and 24 months after diagnosis. Pre-treatment demographic variables, unrelated health problems, vision in the fellow eye, tumour characteristics and prognosis for metastatic disease were statistically controlled. RESULTS:Patients treated by enucleation experienced greater functional problems at 6 months, which abated at 12 and 24 months (P = 0.020). PBRpatients reported greater impairments of central and peripheral vision (P = 0.009) and reading difficulties (P = 0.002) over 24 months. Treatment modality did not influence difficulty in driving (P = 0.694), ocular irritation (P = 0.281), headaches (P = 0.640), appearance concerns (P = 0.187) or worry about recurrence (P = 0.899). CONCLUSIONS: When making treatment decisions, it is important that patients and clinicians consider long-standing difficulties of visual impairment associated with PBR and temporary 6-month difficulties in activities related to depth perception associated with enucleation.
Authors: Vivian W M Ho; Rumana N Hussain; Gabriela Czanner; Julia Sen; Heinrich Heimann; Bertil E Damato Journal: Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 1.746
Authors: Bertil Damato; Laura Hope-Stone; Bruce Cooper; Steve L Brown; Peter Salmon; Heinrich Heimann; Laura B Dunn Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-03-17 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Michele Melia; Claudia S Moy; Sandra M Reynolds; James A Hayman; Timothy G Murray; Kenneth R Hovland; John D Earle; Natalie Kurinij; Li Ming Dong; Päivi H Miskala; Connie Fountain; David Cella; Carol M Mangione Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2006-02
Authors: Stephen L Brown; Demian Whiting; Hannah G Fielden; Pooja Saini; Helen Beesley; Christopher Holcombe; Susan Holcombe; Lyn Greenhalgh; Louise Fairburn; Peter Salmon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Cari Davies; Stephen Lloyd Brown; Peter Fisher; Laura Hope-Stone; Debra Fisher; Andrew Morgan; Mary Gemma Cherry Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Johannes Gollrad; Christopher Rabsahl; Antonia M Joussen; Andrea Stroux; Volker Budach; Dirk Böhmer; Alexander Böker Journal: Ocul Oncol Pathol Date: 2021-11-08
Authors: Marina Marinkovic; Lennart J Pors; Vincent van den Berg; Femke P Peters; Ann Schalenbourg; Leonidas Zografos; Alessia Pica; Jan Hrbacek; Sjoerd G Van Duinen; T H Khanh Vu; Jaco C Bleeker; Coen R N Rasch; Martine J Jager; Gregorius P M Luyten; Nanda Horeweg Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 6.639