ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Ruthenium-106 brachytherapy and central uveal melanoma.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transscleral photodynamic therapy with a chlorin e6: An experimental study of exposure parameters and therapeutic window.PloS one · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes and risk factors for local failure and visual impairment in patients treated with Ru-106 brachytherapy for uveal melanoma.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Platinum group metals for nuclear medicine, a luxurious dream or the future of imaging and therapy: a review.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary ocular malignancy. The size and location of the tumor are decisive for brachytherapy with the β-emitting ruthenium-106 (Ru-106) plaque. The treatment of juxtapapillary and juxtafoveolar UM may be challenging because of the proximity or involvement of the macula and optic nerve and high recurrence rates.
methodsCentral UMs were defined as lesions up to 5 mm off the optic disc or fovea radius of 5 mm. Between January 2011 and July 2020, we treated 56 patients with Ru-106-brachytherapy. The clinical outcomes for recurrence, visual acuity, and radiation-related toxicity were assessed. The follow-up was 66 (6-136) months.
resultsOf the 56 patients (56 eyes), 8 (14%) suffered from local recurrence. Six relapsing UM in 19 (32%) patients were located close to the optic disc, and two patients had UM close to the macula (2/37, 5%) (p > 0.05). The overall eye-preservation rate was 89%. The pretreatment visual acuity (VA) was 0.45 and reduced to 0.26 after brachytherapy. Radiation retinopathy or optic neuropathy was detected in 7 (13%) patients and radiation maculopathy in 10 (17.9%). Six patients (11%) underwent enucleation for recurrence or radiation-induced ophthalmopathy.
conclusionCentral UMs are challenging to treat. UMs should be categorized as lesions laterally or medially to the fovea because of different long-term control rates. Localization near the optic disc requires thoughtful management.
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.