ReviewInternational ophthalmology2026
Radiation retinopathy: a review.
Review in International ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRadiation retinopathy (RR) and radiation maculopathy (RM) are common, vision-threatening complications of ocular and periocular radiotherapy, particularly after treatment of uveal melanoma. They result from progressive occlusive microangiopathy leading to retinal ischemia, macular edema, and visual decline. With the increasing use of plaque brachytherapy and proton beam therapy, understanding their epidemiology, risk factors, and management is essential to improve outcomes.
resultsRR and RM arise from radiation-induced endothelial and pericyte injury causing blood-retinal barrier breakdown, ischemia, and neuronal loss. Risk is influenced by patient factors (diabetes, hypertension, chemotherapy), tumor characteristics (size, location), and radiation parameters (dose, isotope, fractionation). Advances in imaging, especially OCT and OCT angiography, permit early detection of subclinical edema and microvascular ischemia before funduscopic changes. Classification systems integrating fundus, angiographic, and OCT features provide standardized grading. Treatment remains challenging, though anti-VEGF agents (bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept) demonstrate the strongest evidence for reducing edema, stabilizing anatomy, and preserving vision; however, no treatment has demonstrated clear superiority, and outcomes are largely derived from non-comparative studies. Early and sustained therapy yields better outcomes, though recurrence is common. Emerging agents such as faricimab are under investigation.
conclusionsRR and RM remain major obstacles to long-term visual preservation after ocular radiotherapy. Multimodal imaging enables earlier diagnosis, while anti-VEGF therapy is the current standard of care. Clinicians should maintain vigilance in at-risk patients, initiate timely treatment, and use imaging biomarkers to guide follow-up. Future research should optimize treatment regimens and evaluate novel therapeutics to further improve visual outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42521880What 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.