Evidence Hub

High-risk Pathologic Features Based on Presenting Findings in Advanced Intraocular Retinoblastoma

A. Tomar, P. Finger, B. Gallie, T. Kivelä, A. Mallipatna, Cheng-Yue Zhang, Jun-Yang Zhao, Matthew W. Wilson et al.

Ophthalmology (Rochester, Minn.), 2022

18 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the value of clinical features for advanced intraocular retinoblastoma as defined by the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) cT3 category and AJCC Ophthalmic Oncology Task Force (OOTF) Size Groups to predict the high-risk pathologic features. Design: International, multicenter, registry-based retrospective case series. Participants: Eighteen ophthalmic oncology centers from 13 countries over 6 continents shared evaluations of 942 eyes enucleated as primary treatment for AJCC cT3 and, for comparison, cT2 retinoblastoma. Methods: International, multicenter, registry-based data were pooled from patients enrolled between 2001 and 2013. High-risk pathologic features were defined as AJCC categories pT3 and pT4. In addition, AJCC OOTF Size Groups were defined as follows: (1) less than half, (2) more than half but less than two thirds, (3) more than two thirds of globe volume involved, and (4) diffuse infiltrating retinoblastoma. Main Outcome Measures: Statistical risk of high-risk pathologic features corresponding to AJCC cT3 subcategories and AJCC OOTF Size Groups. Results: Of 942 retinoblastoma eyes treated by primary enucleation, 282 (30%) showed high-risk pathologic features. Both cT subcategories and AJCC OOTF Size Groups (P < 0.001 for both) were associated with high-risk pathologic features. On logistic regression analysis, cT3c (iris neovascularization with glaucoma), cT3d (intraocular hemorrhage), and cT3e (aseptic orbital…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free