Radiotherapy for recurrent choroidal neovascularisation complicating 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.

Radiation Therapy for Benign Disease: Keloids, Macular Degeneration, Orbital Pseudotumor, Pterygium, Peyronie Disease, Trigeminal Neuralgia

Although the use of ionizing radiation on malignant conditions has been well established, its application on benign conditions has not been fully accepted and has been inadequately recognized by health care providers outside of radiation therapy. Most frequently, radiation therapy in these benign conditions is used along with other treatment modalities, such as surgery, when the condition causes significant disability or could even lead to death. Radiation therapy can be helpful for inflammatory/proliferative disorders. This article discusses the present use of radiation therapy for some of the most common benign conditions.

Age-related macular degeneration revisited--piecing the puzzle: the LXIX Edward Jackson memorial lecture

PURPOSE

To present the current understanding of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) pathogenesis, based on clinical evidence, epidemiologic data, histopathologic examination, and genetic data; to provide an update on current and emerging therapies; and to propose an integrated model of the pathogenesis of AMD.

DESIGN

Review of published clinical and experimental studies.

METHODS

Analysis and synthesis of clinical and experimental data.

RESULTS

We are closer to a complete understanding of the pathogenesis of AMD, having progressed from clinical observations to epidemiologic observations and clinical pathologic correlation. More recently, modern genetic and genomic studies have facilitated the exploration of molecular pathways. It seems that AMD is a complex disease that results from the interaction of genetic susceptibility with aging and environmental factors. Disease progression also seems to be driven by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapies based on pathophysiologic features have changed the paradigm for treating neovascular AMD. With improved understanding of the underlying genetic susceptibility, we can identify targets to halt early disease and to prevent progression and vision loss.

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.

The role of radiation therapy in benign diseases

Although adequate prospective data are lacking, radiation therapy seems to be effective for many benign diseases and remains one of the treatment modalities in the armamentarium of medical professionals. Just as medication has potential adverse effects, and surgery has attendant morbidity, irradiation sometimes can be associated with acute and chronic sequelae. In selecting the mode of treatment, most radiation oncologists consider the particular problem to be addressed and the goal of therapy in the individual patient. It is the careful and judicial use of any therapy that identifies the professional. With an understanding of the current clinical data, treatment techniques, cost, and potential detriment, the goal is to provide long-term control of the disease while minimizing unnecessary treatment and potential risks of side effects. The art lies in balancing benefits against risks.

Contrast sensitivity as an outcome measure in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation due to age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE

Although visual acuity is the most frequently used primary outcome measure in clinical trials of treatments for choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), contrast sensitivity may provide valuable additional information. This paper reviews the evidence for using contrast sensitivity as a measure of visual function and as an outcome measure in clinical trials in patients with subfoveal CNV due to AMD.

METHODS

Medline database searches were performed to retrieve relevant articles on contrast sensitivity. In addition, articles were included from the authors' knowledge of the literature and from the reference lists of retrieved articles.

RESULTS

The published literature demonstrates that contrast sensitivity is an important measure of visual function in patients with subfoveal CNV due to AMD. Most clinical trials of treatments for CNV due to AMD have reported visual acuity as the primary outcome. However, there is evidence that treatment (such as verteporfin therapy) may also provide additional benefits in terms of contrast sensitivity. These benefits may not be completely characterised by measurement of visual acuity alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of contrast sensitivity as an outcome measure in studies of patients with CNV due to AMD may provide a more complete understanding of the effects of treatment on visual function and the likely benefits for patients.