0
selected
-
1.
Rapid growth of primary uveal melanoma following intravitreal bevacizumab injection: a case report and review of the literature.
Ma, J, Roelofs, KA, Russell, L, Weis, E, Chen, SH
Digital journal of ophthalmology : DJO. 2021;(3):27-30
Abstract
Uveal melanoma size is a significant predictor of tumor metastasis. Although the relationship between antivascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) and uveal melanoma growth has been studied, results are paradoxical, and the relationship remains controversial. We report the case of a 65-year-old man who presented with elevated intraocular pressure in his right eye, neovascularization of his iris, and significant corneal edema, which obscured the view of the angle. Given his history of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, he was diagnosed with neovascular glaucoma and subsequently received an intravitreal injection of bevacizumab and underwent Ahmed valve insertion. This was complicated by postoperative hyphema. Two and a half months postoperatively, a mass involving the inferior iris and ciliary body became visible, and fine-needle aspiration biopsy confirmed uveal melanoma. Seven weeks after diagnosis, the tumor's largest basal diameter had increased from 2.51 mm to 18.0 mm, and apical height increased from 6.23 mm to 11.0 mm. His right eye was enucleated. Histopathological analysis showed discontinuous invasion next to the Ahmed valve. Tumor progression after injection raises the possibility that in some untreated uveal melanomas, accelerated growth may occur following exposure to anti-VEGF agents.
-
2.
Bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of individual patients' data from 3 phase III studies.
Salvatore, L, Bria, E, Sperduti, I, Hinke, A, Hegewisch-Becker, S, Aparicio, T, Le Malicot, K, Boige, V, Koeberle, D, Baertschi, D, et al
Cancer treatment reviews. 2021;:102202
Abstract
BACKGROUND The real impact of bevacizumab maintenance as single agent in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear. SAKK-41/06 and PRODIGE-9 failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority and superiority of bevacizumab versus no maintenance, respectively, while AIO-KRK-0207 showed the non-inferiority of maintenance bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and fluoropyrimidines for time to strategy failure. METHODS Bibliography electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for English published clinical trials prospectively randomizing mCRC patients to receive bevacizumab maintenance or not after first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Individual patients' data (IPD) were provided by investigators for all included trials. Primary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), both from the start of induction and maintenance. Univariate and multivariate analyses for PFS and OS were performed. RESULTS Three phase III studies - PRODIGE-9, AIO-KRK-0207 and SAKK-41/06 - were included. Considering the different timing of randomization, IPD of patients not progressed during induction and starting maintenance phase entered the analysis. 909 patients were included, 457 (50%) received bevacizumab maintenance. Median PFS from induction start was 9.6 and 8.9 months in bevacizumab group versus no maintenance group, respectively (HR 0.78; 95%CI: 0.68-0.89; p < 0.0001). Subgroups analysis for PFS showed a significant interaction according for RAS status (p = 0.048), with a maintenance benefit limited to RAS wild-type patients. No difference in terms of OS was observed. CONCLUSIONS Despite the statistically significant PFS improvement for bevacizumab maintenance, the absolute benefit appears limited. Subgroup analysis shows a differential effect of bevacizumab maintenance in favor of RAS wild-type patients. Considering these results, maintenance therapy with fluoropyrimidine with or without bevacizumab remains the first option. Single agent bevacizumab maintenance can be considered in selected cases, such as cumulative toxicity or patient's refusal, in particular for RAS wild-type patients.
-
3.
How do we evaluate the role of focal/grid photocoagulation in the treatment of diabetic macular edema?
Blindbaek, SL, Peto, T, Grauslund, J
Acta ophthalmologica. 2019;(4):339-346
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) have consistently demonstrated efficacy and safety and changed both the aim and perspectives of diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment. Hence, the present and future role of focal/grid laser photocoagulation in DME treatment has been subjected to some debate. However, extensive insight into technical advances in novel laser systems, treatment protocols of anti-VEGF trials and the functional impact of modern focal/grid photocoagulation is needed to evaluate the present and future role of photocoagulation in DME treatment. Across a wide range of clinical trials laser therapy was required as adjunctive/rescue treatment in approximately 20-50% of patients receiving anti-VEGF monotherapy for centre involving DME. Further, a lower retreatment rate and a more stable reduction in retinal thickness have been demonstrated in more studies. However, lacking information on the laser systems used, their technical specifications and protocols of application often complicates direct comparison of results in anti-VEGF trials. Hence, this paper aimed to provide an overview of the currently available data relevant to the potential role of focal/grid laser photocoagulation in DME treatment including a thorough overview of the current most commonly used laser systems. Results with subthreshold diode micropulse laser photocoagulation are intriguing and may offer a valuable option as adjunctive therapy to anti-VEGF treatment. However, more well-designed studies on combination therapy are warranted to determine the full potential of modern retinal photocoagulation systems. In conclusion, current data suggest that focal/grid laser therapy should still be an option for consideration as adjunctive therapy in many patients.
-
4.
Comparison of efficacy between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and laser treatment in Type-1 and threshold retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).
Li, Z, Zhang, Y, Liao, Y, Zeng, R, Zeng, P, Lan, Y
BMC ophthalmology. 2018;(1):19
Abstract
BACKGROUND Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) is one of the most common causes of childhood blindness worldwide. Comparisons of anti-VEGF and laser treatments in ROP are relatively lacking, and the data are scattered and limited. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of both treatments in type-1 and threshold ROP. METHODS A comprehensive literature search on ROP treatment was conducted using PubMed and Embase up to March 2017 in all languages. Major evaluation indexes were extracted from the included studies by two authors. The fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to measure the pooled estimates. The test of heterogeneity was performed using the Q statistic. RESULTS Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis. Retreatment incidence was significantly increased for anti-VEGF (OR 2.52; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.66; P = 0.003) compared to the laser treatment, while the incidences of eye complications (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.82; P = 0.02) and myopia were significantly decreased with anti-VEGF compared to the laser treatment. However, there was no difference in the recurrence incidence (OR 1.86; 95% CI 0.37 to 9.40; P = 0.45) and time between treatment and retreatment (WMD 7.54 weeks; 95% CI 2.00 to 17.08; P = 0.12). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis indicates that laser treatment may be more efficacious than anti-VEGF treatment. However, the results of this meta-analysis also suggest that laser treatment may cause more eye complications and increase myopia. Large-scale prospective RCTs should be performed to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF versus laser treatment in the future.
-
5.
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor combined with intravitreal steroids for diabetic macular oedema.
Mehta, H, Hennings, C, Gillies, MC, Nguyen, V, Campain, A, Fraser-Bell, S
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;(4):CD011599
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti-VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for managing DMO. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 February 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravitreal anti-VEGF combined with intravitreal steroids versus intravitreal anti-VEGF alone, intravitreal steroids alone or macular laser alone for managing DMO. We included people with DMO of all ages and both sexes. We also included trials where both eyes from one participant received different treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.Two authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches against the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and one year. Secondary outcomes included change in central macular thickness (CMT), economic data and quality of life. We considered adverse effects including intraocular inflammation, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataract. MAIN RESULTS There were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). Seven studies used the unlicensed anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab and one study used licensed ranibizumab. The study that used licensed ranibizumab had a unique design compared with the other studies in that included eyes had persisting DMO after anti-VEGF monotherapy and received three monthly doses of ranibizumab prior to allocation. The anti-VEGF agent was combined with intravitreal triamcinolone in six studies and with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant in two studies. The comparator group was anti-VEGF alone in all studies; two studies had an additional steroid monotherapy arm, another study had an additional macular laser photocoagulation arm. Whilst we judged these studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains, at least one domain was at unclear risk in all studies.When comparing anti-VEGF/steroid with anti-VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA (mean difference (MD) -2.29 visual acuity (VA) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.03 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD 0.20 μm, 95% CI -37.14 to 37.53; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) at one year. There was very low-certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti-VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti-VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti-VEGF/steroid compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. There was low-certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti-VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).One study compared anti-VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA (MD 4.00 VA letters 95% CI -2.70 to 10.70; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD -16.00 μm, 95% CI -68.93 to 36.93; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).One study provided very low-certainty evidence comparing anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid monotherapy at one year. There was no evidence of a meaningful difference in BCVA between treatments at one year (MD 0 VA letters, 95% CI -6.1 to 6.1, low-certainty evidence). Likewise, there was no meaningful difference in the mean CMT at one year (MD - 9 μm, 95% CI -39.87μm to 21.87μm between the anti-VEGF/steroid group and the steroid group. There was very low-certainty evidence on raised IOP at one year comparing the anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid groups (Peto OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.55).No included study reported impact of treatment on patients' quality of life or economic data. None of the studies reported any cases of endophthalmitis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Combination of intravitreal anti-VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low-certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti-VEGF plus steroid versus anti-VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit. The majority of the evidence comes from studies of bevacizumab and triamcinolone used as primary therapy for DMO. There is limited evidence from studies using licensed intravitreal anti-VEGF agents plus licensed intravitreal steroid implants with at least one year follow-up. It is not known whether treatment response is different in eyes that are phakic and pseudophakic at baseline.