Long-term outcomes of group B eyes in patients with retinoblastoma treated with short-course chemoreduction: Experience from Children's Hospital Los Angeles/University of Southern California

16Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background/Aims: Chemoreduction protocols for retinoblastoma vary widely across institutions. Herein, we compare a 3- versus 6-cycle chemotherapy approach for group B retinoblastoma. Methods: A nonrandomized, retrospective review of patients diagnosed with group B retinoblastoma from 1991–2011 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles was performed. A total of 72 eyes of 63 patients were analyzed. Mean follow-up time was 82 months (range 6–272 months). Main outcome measures were globe salvage and need for external beam radiation. Results: Forty-six patients (55 eyes) were treated upfront with 3 cycles of carboplatin, etoposide, and vincristine; 17 patients (17 eyes) received 6 cycles. Thirty-seven eyes (67%) in the 3-cycle group were cured with initial chemoreduction alone. An additional 10 eyes with persistent or recurrent tumors were rescued with 3 more cycles for a total salvage rate of 85% (47/55 eyes). In the 6-cycle group, 16 of 17 eyes (94%) avoided radiation and enucleation. Conclusion: The initial recurrence rate was higher for the 3-cycle group (p = 0.03). However, eyes failing short-course chemoreduction were rescued with 3 additional cycles and achieved a similar overall event-free survival rate (p = 0.16). In our cohort, this short-course approach spared 63% (29/46) of patients with group B retinoblastoma the extra 3 cycles of systemic chemotherapy.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zhu, D., Berry, J. L., Ediriwickrema, L., Wong, K., Lee, T. C., Linn Murphree, A., … Jubran, R. (2016). Long-term outcomes of group B eyes in patients with retinoblastoma treated with short-course chemoreduction: Experience from Children’s Hospital Los Angeles/University of Southern California. Ocular Oncology and Pathology, 2(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1159/000439593

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free