Importance: Radiation retinopathy following plaque radiotherapy for uveal melanoma can lead to vision loss that might be avoided with prophylactic anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment. Objective: To determine visual outcome following prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab in patients with plaque-irradiated uveal melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, nonrandomized, interventional cohort study at Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Prophylactic bevacizumab was administered between 2008 and 2018 to 1131 eyes with irradiated uveal melanoma (bevacizumab group) and compared with 117 eyes with irradiated uveal melanoma between 2007 and 2009 (no bevacizumab [historical control] group). Interventions: Prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab was provided at the time of plaque removal as well as 6 subsequent injections at 4-month intervals over 2 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Visual acuity. Results: The median patient age was 61 years, 1195 of 1248 patients were white (96%), and 632 of 1248 were women (51%). The median tumor thickness was 4.0 mm, and median distance to foveola was 3.0 mm. A difference was not identified (bevacizumab vs control group) in demographic features, clinical features, or radiation parameters. The mean follow-up was 40 months vs 56 months (mean difference, -18; 95% CI, -24 to -13; P < .001). By survival analysis, the bevacizumab group demonstrated less optical coherence tomography evidence of cystoid macular edema at 24 months (28% vs 37%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .02) and 36 months (44% vs 54%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = .01), less clinical evidence of radiation maculopathy at 24 months (27% vs 36%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2; P = .03), 36 months (44% vs 55%; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .01), and 48 months (61% vs 66%; HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; P = .03), and less clinical evidence of radiation papillopathy at 18 months (6% vs 12%; HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.9; P = .04). Nonparametric analysis documented better visual acuity outcomes in the bevacizumab group at all points, including 12 months (median logMAR visual acuity [Snellen equivalent]: 0.30 [20/40] vs 0.48 [20/60]; mean difference, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.07; P = .02), 24 months (0.40 [20/50] vs 0.70 [20/100]; mean difference, -0.52; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.29; P < .001), 36 months (0.48 [20/60] vs 1.00 [20/200]; mean difference, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.76 to -0.21; P = .003), and 48 months (0.54 [20/70] vs 2.00 [counting fingers]; mean difference, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.38; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings from a retrospective cohort of plaque radiotherapy and prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab in patients with uveal melanoma suggest better visual outcomes when compared with nonrandomized historical control individuals through 4 years.
Importance: Radiation retinopathy following plaque radiotherapy for uveal melanoma can lead to vision loss that might be avoided with prophylactic anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment. Objective: To determine visual outcome following prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab in patients with plaque-irradiated uveal melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, nonrandomized, interventional cohort study at Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Prophylactic bevacizumab was administered between 2008 and 2018 to 1131 eyes with irradiated uveal melanoma (bevacizumab group) and compared with 117 eyes with irradiated uveal melanoma between 2007 and 2009 (no bevacizumab [historical control] group). Interventions: Prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab was provided at the time of plaque removal as well as 6 subsequent injections at 4-month intervals over 2 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Visual acuity. Results: The median patient age was 61 years, 1195 of 1248 patients were white (96%), and 632 of 1248 were women (51%). The median tumor thickness was 4.0 mm, and median distance to foveola was 3.0 mm. A difference was not identified (bevacizumab vs control group) in demographic features, clinical features, or radiation parameters. The mean follow-up was 40 months vs 56 months (mean difference, -18; 95% CI, -24 to -13; P < .001). By survival analysis, the bevacizumab group demonstrated less optical coherence tomography evidence of cystoid macular edema at 24 months (28% vs 37%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2; P = .02) and 36 months (44% vs 54%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = .01), less clinical evidence of radiation maculopathy at 24 months (27% vs 36%; HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2; P = .03), 36 months (44% vs 55%; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .01), and 48 months (61% vs 66%; HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; P = .03), and less clinical evidence of radiation papillopathy at 18 months (6% vs 12%; HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.9; P = .04). Nonparametric analysis documented better visual acuity outcomes in the bevacizumab group at all points, including 12 months (median logMAR visual acuity [Snellen equivalent]: 0.30 [20/40] vs 0.48 [20/60]; mean difference, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.07; P = .02), 24 months (0.40 [20/50] vs 0.70 [20/100]; mean difference, -0.52; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.29; P < .001), 36 months (0.48 [20/60] vs 1.00 [20/200]; mean difference, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.76 to -0.21; P = .003), and 48 months (0.54 [20/70] vs 2.00 [counting fingers]; mean difference, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.38; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings from a retrospective cohort of plaque radiotherapy and prophylactic intravitreal bevacizumab in patients with uveal melanoma suggest better visual outcomes when compared with nonrandomized historical control individuals through 4 years.
Authors: E Stephen Amis; Priscilla F Butler; Kimberly E Applegate; Steven B Birnbaum; Libby F Brateman; James M Hevezi; Fred A Mettler; Richard L Morin; Michael J Pentecost; Geoffrey G Smith; Keith J Strauss; Robert K Zeman Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Michael S Stecker; Stephen Balter; Richard B Towbin; Donald L Miller; Eliseo Vañó; Gabriel Bartal; J Fritz Angle; Christine P Chao; Alan M Cohen; Robert G Dixon; Kathleen Gross; George G Hartnell; Beth Schueler; John D Statler; Thierry de Baère; John F Cardella Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: B M Melia; D H Abramson; D M Albert; H C Boldt; J D Earle; W F Hanson; P Montague; C S Moy; A P Schachat; E R Simpson; B R Straatsma; A K Vine; T A Weingeist Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Carol L Shields; Kareem Sioufi; Archana Srinivasan; Maura Di Nicola; Babak Masoomian; Laura E Barna; Vladislav P Bekerman; Emil A T Say; Arman Mashayekhi; Jacqueline Emrich; Lydia Komarnicky; Jerry A Shields Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Noel Horgan; Carol L Shields; Arman Mashayekhi; Luiz F Teixeira; Miguel A Materin; Jerry A Shields Journal: Retina Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Lauren A Dalvin; Christopher L Deufel; Kimberly S Corbin; Ivy A Petersen; Timothy W Olsen; Gavin W Roddy Journal: J Neuroophthalmol Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 4.415
Authors: Michael Chang; Lauren A Dalvin; Mehdi Mazloumi; Andrei Martin; Antonio Yaghy; Xiaolu Yang; Saba Bakhtiari; Lucy Li; Erin Jennings; Arman Mashayekhi; Carol L Shields Journal: Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) Date: 2020 Jan-Feb
Authors: Elaine M Binkley; Michelle R Tamplin; Anthony H Vitale; H Culver Boldt; Randy H Kardon; Isabella M Grumbach Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep Date: 2022-03-25
Authors: Jackelien G M van Beek; Caroline M van Rij; Sara J Baart; Serdar Yavuzyigitoglu; Michael J Bergmann; Dion Paridaens; Nicole C Naus; Emine Kiliç Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 3.988