ArticleEye (London, England)2022
Outcome of salvage intra-arterial chemotherapy for recurrent retinoblastoma.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intra-Arterial Melphalan Chemotherapy for Retinoblastoma in a Developing Nation: Real-World Outcomes and Prognostic Factors.Cancers · 2025Article
- Ocular manifestations in pediatric tumor suppressor gene mutations: a case series and literature review of RB1, NF1, NF2, VHL, and TSC.BMC pediatrics · 2025Review
- Effectiveness of Intra-Arterial Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Intraocular Retinoblastoma: Relevance of a Multidisciplinary Setting.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- The Safety and Effectiveness of Melphalan-Based Intra-Arterial Chemotherapy for Retinoblastoma: An Updated Single-Arm Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Spotlight on Targeted Chemotherapy in Retinoblastoma: Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Outcomes.OncoTargets and therapy · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the outcome of salvage intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC) for patients with recurrent retinoblastoma after the initial course of IAC and determine the factors influencing clinical outcome.
methodsA total of 73 eyes of 71 patients with recurrent retinoblastoma undergoing salvage IAC after initial successfully IAC between May 2014 and May 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for clinical outcomes. Ocular survival and progression-free survival were used to examine the efficacy of salvage IAC. The factors influencing clinical outcomes were determined using univariate and multivariate analyses.
resultsThe salvage IAC was delivered at mean 9.4 months (median 7, range 2.1-38.3 months) following the last cycle of initial IAC. 86.5% (64/73) eyes relapsed 16 months after the initial IAC. After the salvage IAC, 57 eyes (78.1%) were salvaged, and no further-line therapies were required for 36 eyes (49.3%). The 2-year Kaplan-Meier ocular survival and progression-free survival estimates after salvage IAC were 66.4% (95% CI, 31.5-42.1%) and 38.2% (95% CI, 17.8-28.8%), respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that the ocular survival and progression-free survival after salvage IAC were significantly associated with the history of vitreous seeds (p = 0.02 and p = 0.03, respectively).
conclusionSalvage IAC is effective for the management of recurrent retinoblastoma after the initial successful IAC. Eyes with a history of vitreous seeds in the course of the disease are more likely to relapse and with worse ocular survival. A close follow-up strategy is imperative to treat the recurrent tumour after salvage IAC.
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.