| Literature DB >> 32047660 |
Abstract
Introduction. Retinoblastoma is the most common primary intraocular neoplasm in children. With the advances in medicine, the armamentarium of available treatment modalities has grown. Intraarterial chemotherapy is a relatively new treatment method with promising outcomes. The purpose of this literature review is to evaluate its role in the management of retinoblastoma.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32047660 PMCID: PMC7001664 DOI: 10.1155/2020/3638410
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmol ISSN: 2090-004X Impact factor: 1.909
International Classification of Intraocular Retinoblastoma [1].
| Group | Description | Specific features |
|---|---|---|
| A | Very low risk: | Tumour ≤3 mm in basal dimension or thickness |
|
| ||
| B | Low risk: | Tumour >3 mm in basal dimension or thickness, or any of the following: |
|
| ||
| C | Moderate risk: | One of the following: |
|
| ||
| D | High risk: | One of the following: |
|
| ||
| E | Very high risk: | Extensive retinoblastoma or one of the following: |
Figure 1Retinoblastoma tumour grouping according to the International Intraocular Retinoblastoma 152 Classification. Group A: Tumour confined to the retina, >3 mm away from the macula (a); Group B: 153 tumour confined to the retina, at the macular region (b); Group C: local seeding (arrow) (c); Group D: 154 diffuse vitreous seeding (d); and Group E: iris neovascularization of the iris and a large tumour seen 155 behind the crystalline lens (e) reproduced from Ido Didi Fabian and Mandeep S. Sagoo 2019, [under the 156 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License] [13].
Reese–Ellsworth classification for retinoblastoma [14].
| Group | Likelihood of globe salvage | Specific features (DD: disc diameter) |
|---|---|---|
| I | Very favourable | Solitary tumour <4 DD in size, at or behind the equator |
|
| ||
| II | Favourable | Solitary tumour 4–10 DD in size, at or behind the equator |
|
| ||
| III | Doubtful | Any lesion anterior to the equator |
|
| ||
| IV | Unfavourable | Mulitple tumours, some >10 DD |
|
| ||
| V | Very unfavourable | Massive tumour involving over half the retina |
Figure 2Differential diagnosis of retinoblastoma [2].
Investigations performed in retinoblastoma and their findings [1, 11, 15].
| Investigation | Findings/comments |
|---|---|
| Red reflex testing | Absence of red reflex |
|
| |
| Examination under anaesthesia (ophthalmoscopy) | White, friable retinal mass, tumour calcification, microvasculature, seeding |
|
| |
| B-scan ocular ultrasound | Mass with high internal reflectivity due to calcifications |
|
| |
| Fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) | Dilated feeder vessels in the arterial phase, patchy hyperfluorescence in the venous phase, late staining |
|
| |
| MRI of the brain and orbits | Hyperintense lesion on T1, hypointense lesion on T2, evaluation of tumour size, optic nerve involvement, detection of extraocular extension and pinealoblastoma, does not detect calcifications |
|
| |
| CT of the brain and orbits | Hyperdense lesion compared to surrounding vitreous, possible calcifications, usually avoided due to increased risk of secondary cancers |
Figure 3Different imaging modalities used to visualise retinoblastoma [15]. (a) B scan of an eye with diffuse pattern retinoblastoma showing areas of calcification (see left) reproduced from Fahad Albader and Dalal Fatani 2019, (under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License). (b) MRI T1-weighted image with contrast, faintly enhanced retrolental mass at left globe corresponding to retinoblastoma tumor core [see left] reproduced from Fahad Albader and Dalal Fatani 2019, [under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License]. (c) MRI T2-weighted fat saturated image of the orbits showing low signal of retrolental mass corresponding to retinoblastoma tumor at the left globe with mild reduction of size of globe (see left) reproduced from Fahad Albader and Dalal Fatani 2019, (under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License). (d) CT (soft tissue window image) showing right globe hyperdense vitreous, retrolental intraocular solid mass with dystrophic calcification and proximal calcified optic nerve local invasion (see left) reproduced from Fahad Albader and Dalal Fatani 2019, [under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License].
Summary of IAC chemotherapeutic agents [5].
| Name of drug | Type of drug | Standard dose and dose range in mg | Indications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Melphalan | Alkylating agent, nitrogen mustard derivative | 5 (3–7.5) | Group B and C tumours as a single agent |
|
| |||
| Topotecan | Camptothecin derivative, topoisomerase 1 inhibitor | 1 (1-2) | Advanced retinoblastoma with diffuse vitreous seeds |
|
| |||
| Carboplatin | Platinum-based derivative | 20 (15–30) | Bilateral IAC to lower the cumulative toxicity of melphalan, recurrence after IAC, suboptimal response to combined melphalan and topotecan |
Figure 4Intraocular retinoblastoma before and after treatement with intraarterial chemotherapy [18]. (a) Fundoscopic exam revealing an intraocular retinoblastoma before treatment with intra-arterial chemotherapy [see left] reproduced from Mario Zanaty et al. 2014, [under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License]. (b) Fundoscopic exam revealing the same patient with intraocular retinoblastoma after treatment with intra-arterial chemotherapy [see left] reproduced from Mario Zanaty et al. 2014, [under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License].
Figure 5Contraindications to IAC [5].
Overall globe salvage and globe salvage by groups across analysed studies.
| Study | Overall globe salvage (%) | Globe salvage by groups |
|---|---|---|
| Gobin et al. [ | 80 | RE I–IV 100%, RE V 77%, 81.7% primary, 58.4% secondary |
| Peterson et al. [ | 76 | 76% D |
| Suzuki et al. [ | 60 | 100% A, 88% B, 65% C, 45% D, 30% E |
| Marr et al. [ | 88 | No data |
| Muen et al. [ | 80 | 80% secondary |
| Thampi et al. [ | 70 | 86% A–C, 38% D and E, 58.3% primary, 87.5% secondary |
| Venturi et al. [ | 79 | 57% primary, 95.5% secondary |
| Ghassemi et al. [ | 62.5 | 67.5% D-E, 84% primary, 56% secondary |
| Shields et al. [ | 67 | 100% B, 100% C, 94% D, 36% E of primary treatments, 72% primary, 62% secondary |
| Parareda et al. [ | 58 | 58% D |
| Akyüz et al. [ | 66 | 75% primary, 64% secondary |
| Ong et al. [ | 59 | 75% B and C, 54% D and E, 67% primary, 55% secondary |
| Abramson et al. [ | 78.6 | 78.6% D, 85% primary, 74% secondary |
| Michaels et al. [ | 58 | 43% primary, 67% secondary |
| Tuncer et al. [ | 66.6 | 66.6% D, 66.6% primary |
| Chen et al. [ | 78.5 | 100% B, 100% C, 78.6% D, 62% E, 93.3% primary, 79% secondary |
| Munier et al. [ | 100 | 100% D |
| Reddy et al. [ | 66 | 66% secondary |
| Francis et al. [ | 92 | No data |
| Funes et al. [ | 63 | 92% B-C, 40% D, 69% primary, 68% secondary |
| Hua et al. [ | 30 | 42% D, 21% E |
| Wang et al. [ | 78.7 | 84.2% D, 69.6% E, 78.7% primary |
| Dalvin et al. [ | 74 | B 100%, C 100%, D 79%, E 58% |
Figure 6Ocular complications following IAC.
Figure 7Systemic and extraocular complications following IAC.
Incidence of metastases, deaths, and secondary tumours reported in the analysed studies.
| Study | Metastasis (no of pts) | Deaths (no of pts) | Secondary tumour (no of tumours) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gobin et al. [ | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Suzuki et al. [ | 8 | 12 | 12 |
| Akyüz et al. [ | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Ong et al. [ | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| Abramson et al. [ | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Francis et al. [ | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Funes et al. [ | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Sample size, technical success rate, and duration of follow-up across analysed studies.
| Study | No. of eyes | Technical success rate of catheterization (%) | Follow-up in months (range) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gobin et al. [ | 95 | 98.5 | Median 13 (1–29) |
| Peterson et al. [ | 17 | 100 | Mean 8.6 (3–12) |
| Suzuki et al. [ | 408 | 98.8 | Median 74 (0–252) |
| Marr et al. [ | 26 | 100 | Mean 14 (1–43) |
| Muen et al. [ | 15 | No data | Mean 9 (3–16) |
| Thampi et al. [ | 20 | 100 | Median 14.5 (1–29) |
| Venturi et al. [ | 39 | 94.7 | Mean 13 (1–27) |
| Ghassemi et al. [ | 24 | No data | Mean 17.6 (3–57) |
| Shields et al. [ | 70 | 99.5 | Mean 19 |
| Parareda et al. [ | 12 | 94 | Median 30 (6–57) |
| Akyüz et al. [ | 56 | No data | Median 12 (0–28) |
| Ong et al. [ | 17 | 91 | Median 22 (5–43) |
| Abramson et al. [ | 112 | No data | Mean 34 (2–110) |
| Michaels et al. [ | 19 | 100 | Median 13 |
| Tuncer et al. [ | 24 | 97.3 | Median 29 (6–55) |
| Chen et al. [ | 107 | 98.5 | Mean 14 (3–28) |
| Munier et al. [ | 25 | No data | Mean 42 (20–90) |
| Reddy et al. [ | 9 | No data | Median 21 (4–35) |
| Francis et al. [ | 436 | No data | Median 27 (0–120) |
| Funes et al. [ | 97 | 99 | Median 49 (12–79) |
| Hua et al. [ | 84 | 94.5 | Mean 14 (3–28) |
| Wang et al. [ | 61 | 100 | No data |
| Dalvin et al. [ | 54 | No data | 27 (21–63) |
Figure 8Summary of new treatment modalities for retinoblastoma [42–44].