A phase I trial of stereotactic external beam radiation for subfoveal choroidal neovascular membranes in age-related macular degeneration

Radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy has been proposed as a treatment for new vessel growth in people with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of radiotherapy on neovascular AMD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and three trials registers and checked references of included studies. We last searched the databases on 4 May 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials in which radiotherapy was compared to another treatment, sham treatment, low dosage irradiation or no treatment in people with choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) secondary to AMD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We considered the following outcomes at 12 months: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (loss of 3 or more lines, change in visual acuity), contrast sensitivity, new vessel growth, quality of life and adverse effects at any time point.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (n = 2430 people, 2432 eyes) of radiation therapy with dosages ranging from 7.5 to 24 Gy. These studies mainly took place in Europe and North America but two studies were from Japan and one multicentre study included sites in South America. Three of these studies investigated brachytherapy (plaque and epimacular), the rest were studies of external beam radiotherapy (EBM) including one trial of stereotactic radiotherapy. Four studies compared radiotherapy combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) with anti-VEGF alone. Eleven studies gave no radiotherapy treatment to the control group; five studies used sham irradiation; and one study used very low-dose irradiation (1 Gy). One study used a mixture of sham irradiation and no treatment. Fifteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy There may be little or no difference in loss of 3 lines of vision at 12 months in eyes treated with radiotherapy compared with no radiotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.04, 811 eyes, 8 studies, I² = 66%, low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests a small benefit in change in visual acuity (mean difference (MD) -0.10 logMAR, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.03; eyes = 883; studies = 10) and average contrast sensitivity at 12 months (MD 0.15 log units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.25; eyes = 267; studies = 2). Growth of new vessels (largely change in CNV size) was variably reported and It was not possible to produce a summary estimate of this outcome. The studies were small with imprecise estimates and there was no consistent pattern to the study results (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was only reported in one study of 199 people; there was no clear difference between treatment and control groups (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence was available on adverse effects from eight of 14 studies. Seven studies reported on radiation retinopathy and/or neuropathy. Five of these studies reported no radiation-associated adverse effects. One study of 88 eyes reported one case of possible radiation retinopathy. One study of 74 eyes graded retinal abnormalities in some detail and found that 72% of participants who had radiation compared with 71% of participants in the control group had retinal abnormalities resembling radiation retinopathy or choroidopathy. Four studies reported cataract surgery or progression: events were generally few with no consistent evidence of any increased occurrence in the radiation group. One study noted transient disturbance of the precorneal tear film but there was no evidence from the other two studies that reported dry eye of any increased risk with radiation therapy. None of the participants received anti-VEGF injections. Radiotherapy combined with anti-VEGF versus anti-VEGF alone People receiving radiotherapy/anti-VEGF were probably more likely to lose 3 or more lines of BCVA at 12 months compared with anti-VEGF alone (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.17, 1050 eyes, 3 studies, moderate-certainty). Most of the data for this outcome come from two studies of epimacular brachytherapy (114 events) compared with 20 events from the one trial of EBM. Data on change in BCVA were heterogenous (I² = 82%). Individual study results ranged from a small difference of -0.03 logMAR in favour of radiotherapy/anti-VEGF to a difference of 0.13 logMAR in favour of anti-VEGF alone (low-certainty evidence). The effect differed depending on how the radiotherapy was delivered (test for interaction P = 0.0007). Epimacular brachytherapy was associated with worse visual outcomes (MD 0.10 logMAR, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15, 820 eyes, 2 studies) compared with EBM (MD -0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03, 252 eyes, 2 studies). None of the included studies reported contrast sensitivity or quality of life. Growth of new vessels (largely change in CNV size) was variably reported in three studies (803 eyes). It was not possible to produce a summary estimate and there was no consistent pattern to the study results (very low-certainty evidence). For adverse outcomes, variable results were reported in the four studies. In three studies reports of adverse events were low and no radiation-associated adverse events were reported. In one study of epimacular brachytherapy there was a higher proportion of ocular adverse events (54%) compared to the anti-VEGF alone (18%). The majority of these adverse events were cataract. Overall 5% of the treatment group had radiation device-related adverse events (17 cases); 10 of these cases were radiation retinopathy. There were differences in average number of injections given between the four studies (1072 eyes). In three of the four studies, the anti-VEGF alone group on average received more injections (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is uncertain regarding the use of radiotherapy for neovascular AMD. Most studies took place before the routine use of anti-VEGF, and before the development of modern radiotherapy techniques such as stereotactic radiotherapy. Visual outcomes with epimacular brachytherapy are likely to be worse, with an increased risk of adverse events,  probably related to vitrectomy. The role of stereotactic radiotherapy combined with anti-VEGF is currently uncertain. Further research on radiotherapy for neovascular AMD may not be justified until current ongoing studies have reported their results.

Context for Protons as Adjunctive Therapy in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Review

In the last few years we have witnessed increasing availability of proton therapy in the United States and worldwide. As a result, proton therapy is considered as either a primary or adjunctive approach for numerous indications where conventional radiation therapy shows promise but is accompanied by toxicities. Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) remains the leading cause of adult blindness in industrialized nations, and third worldwide, following cataract and glaucoma. Current standard therapy is intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. While this treatment shows improvement and stabilization in visual acuity for 40% of patients, 60% still experience disease progression. These injections are costly, necessitate repeated office visits, and carry the risk of endophthalmitis. The pathophysiology underlying neovascular AMD (nAMD) underscores the need to simultaneously target multiple pathways to retain useful vision. Radiation can be antiangiogenic, anti-inflammatory, and antiproliferative. Early photon therapy clinical trials were heterogeneous, and a Cochrane review of data demonstrated usefulness in treatment of nAMD but recommended further studies. Advantages of proton therapy over photon therapy include the ability to deliver a focal dose to the target while minimizing dose to normal structures, which is enhanced by unique treatment planning software that uses fluorescein angiography to verify target location and allows conformation of dose to the irregular shape and thickness characteristic of choroidal neovascular membranes, the pathognomonic finding in nAMD. Preliminary data suggest a potential role for proton therapy in the treatment of nAMD. In this article we review previous treatments for AMD, including those with both photon and proton radiation, and recommend future directions for clinical investigations to evaluate the role of proton therapy as an adjunct to antiangiogenic therapy, the current standard of care in this challenging setting.

One-year results from clinical practice of epimacular strontium-90 brachytherapy for the treatment of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to AMD

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical feasibility, safety, and efficacy of epiretinal strontium-90 brachytherapy in subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in eyes unresponsive to repeated anti-VEGF injections.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective, single-center study on patients treated with strontium-90 brachytherapy for CNV secondary to neovascular AMD. Patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy with a single 24 Gy dose brachytherapy. They were re-treated with anti-VEGF injections on an as-needed basis if subretinal or intraretinal fluid was detected on optical coherence tomography imaging.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were treated, and 20 completed 12 months of follow-up. Ten patients maintained stable vision, eight gained vision, and two lost more than three Snellen lines. The mean best corrected visual acuity change from baseline was -8 ± 5.7 letters. A mean of 5.5 ± 4.4 anti-VEGF injections were administered throughout 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Epimacular brachytherapy is feasible in clinical practice. While some patients benefit from the treatment and need significantly fewer as-needed injections, others appear not to react to irradiation treatment after 1 year of follow-up. Larger numbers of patients are needed to evaluate therapeutic efficacy and to determine which patients can benefit from combined radiation and anti-VEGF therapy.

Radiation therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

In the enormity of the public health burden imposed by age-related macular degeneration (ARMD), much effort has been directed toward identifying effective and efficient treatments. Currently, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections have demonstrated considerably efficacy in treating neovascular ARMD, but patients require frequent treatment to fully benefit. Here, we review the rationale and evidence for radiation therapy of ARMD. The results of early photon external beam radiation therapy are included to provide a framework for the sequential discussion of evidence for the usage of stereotactic radiation therapy, proton therapy, and brachytherapy. The evidence suggests that these 3 modern modalities can provide a dose-dependent benefit in the treatment of ARMD. Most importantly, preliminary data suggest that all 3 can be used in conjunction with anti-VEGF therapeutics, thereby reducing the frequency of anti-VEGF injections required to maintain visual acuity.

Ten-year follow-up of eyes treated with stereotactic fractionated external beam radiation for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE

To determine the long-term effects of stereotactic fractionated external beam radiation on eyes treated for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all eyes treated with stereotactic fractionated external beam radiation (20-40 Gy, 2-Gy fractions) between 1997 and 2000 was performed to identify eyes with ≥ 2-year follow-up for analysis. A subset was imaged prospectively using a high-resolution Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography.

RESULTS

Among 94 eyes treated, 33 eyes (32 subjects) had ≥ 2-year follow-up information (mean follow-up, 6.2 years; range, 2-10 years). Final visual acuity ranged from 20/50 to no light perception. Final macular findings included central geographic atrophy (49%), disciform scar (30%), and active choroidal neovascular membrane (9%). Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography images of three eyes with geographic atrophy revealed photoreceptor layer loss within areas of geographic atrophy with intact retinal morphology in areas of radiation exposure outside geographic atrophy. Radiation retinopathy was suspected in 18% and confirmed by fluorescein angiography in 15%, ranging from mild to neovascular glaucoma/phthisis bulbi (2 eyes). Mean time from stereotactic fractionated external beam radiation to development of radiation retinopathy was 5.4 years (range, 1-10 years).

CONCLUSION

A moderate rate of delayed radiation retinopathy was noted in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with stereotactic fractionated external beam radiation. Geographic atrophy was a common finding.

Radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy has been proposed as a treatment to prevent new vessel growth in people with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to examine the effects of radiotherapy on neovascular AMD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) in The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2010, MEDLINE (January 1950 to March 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2010), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2010), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (March 2010) and ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov) (March 2010). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 23 March 2010. We also wrote to investigators of trials included in the review to ask if they were aware of any other studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials in which radiotherapy was compared to another treatment, sham treatment, low dosage irradiation or no treatment in people with choroidal neovascularisation secondary to AMD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data. We combined relative risks using a random-effects model. We estimated the percentage of the variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity, rather than sampling error, using I(2).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials (n=1154) investigated external beam radiotherapy with dosages ranging from 7.5 to 24 Gy; one additional trial (n=88) used plaque brachytherapy (15Gy at 1.75mm for 54 minutes/12.6 Gy at 4mm for 11 minutes). Most studies found effects (not always significant) that favoured treatment. Overall there was a small statistically significant reduction in risk of visual acuity loss in the treatment group. There was considerable inconsistency between trials and the trials were considered to be at risk of bias, in particular because of the lack of masking of treatment group. Subgroup analyses did not reveal any significant interactions, however, there were small numbers of trials in each subgroup (range three to five). There was some indication that trials with no sham irradiation in the control group reported a greater effect of treatment. The incidence of adverse events was low in all trials; there were no reported cases of radiation retinopathy, optic neuropathy or malignancy. Three trials found non-significant higher rates of cataract progression in the treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review currently does not provide convincing evidence that radiotherapy is an effective treatment for neovascular AMD. If further trials are to be considered to evaluate radiotherapy in AMD then adequate masking of the control group must be considered.

Emerging drugs for age-related macular degeneration

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of blindness that until recently had no recognised drug treatment. In wet AMD, choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) causes a profound loss of central vision. CNV is a complex process in which tissue ischaemia and/or inflammation is thought to trigger production of angiogenic signal molecules. The release of VEGF appears to be particularly important. Verteporfin photodynamic therapy was the first drug therapy to be licensed for the treatment of some types of wet AMD. Other treatments directly targeting VEGF or other aspects of angiogenesis, such as pegaptanib, ranibizumab and anecortave acetate, have either recently been licensed or are in the advanced stages of development. These and other promising treatment options such as combination strategies are reviewed.