ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of efficacy and toxicity of intravitreal melphalan formulations for retinoblastoma.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Population Pharmacokinetics of Melphalan in a Large Cohort of Autologous and Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Recipients: Towards Individualized Dosing Regimens.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2022Article
- Evaluation of intravitreal topotecan dose levels, toxicity and efficacy for retinoblastoma vitreous seeds: a preclinical and clinical study.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Treatment of Retinoblastoma: What Is the Latest and What Is the Future.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Intravitreal melphalan hydrochloride vs propylene glycol-free melphalan for retinoblastoma vitreous seeds: Efficacy, toxicity and stability in rabbits models and patients.Experimental eye research · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIntravitreal melphalan injections are commonly used in the treatment for intraocular retinoblastoma. This study compares retinal toxicity and ocular survival between two formulations, with and without propylene glycol (Alkeran vs. Evomela, respectively).
methodsA retrospective cohort study of retinoblastoma patients who received intravitreal injections of Alkeran and Evomela at 30 μg from September 2012 to January 2019 at a single tertiary care center were enrolled. Retinal toxicity was measured using electroretinogram (ERG) and compared using a multivariate analysis of 338 injections in 101 eyes of 96 patients. Ocular survival of 163 eyes in 150 patients was compared across formulations using Cox proportional hazards model. Eyes were censored at the time a patient received a dose other than 30 μg.
resultsOverall, ERG decline (mean, 95% CI) for each injection was -5.58 μV (-7.17, -3.99). No significant differences in ERG decrement were found between Alkeran (with alcohol) -5.52uV (-6.99, -4.05). and Evomela (without alcohol) -5.65uV (-8.31 to -2.98) formulations (p = 0.93). Ocular survival at 24 months was 93.6% (95% CI 86.2, 97.1) with alcohol and 91.7% (95% CI 53.9, 98.8) without alcohol. The hazard ratio (HR) for without vs with alcohol was 0.50 (95% CI 0.06 to 4.07); no significant difference in ocular survival was found between formulations (p = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: No differences were found in retinal toxicity and ocular survival between 30 μg intravitreal injections of Alkeran or Evomela for intraocular retinoblastoma. Given the increased stability of Evomela, intravitreal treatment could be expanded to centers without the ability to supply Alkeran due to its shorter safety window; however, Alkeran is less expensive. For those with existing infrastructure, Alkeran is a comparable, cost-effective alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.