You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 9, Issue 11
  • Selective ophthalmic artery chemosurgery (SOAC) for retinoblastoma: fluoroscopic time and radiation dose parameters. A baseline study

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Tumor embolization
Original research
Selective ophthalmic artery chemosurgery (SOAC) for retinoblastoma: fluoroscopic time and radiation dose parameters. A baseline study
  1. Srikanth R Boddu1,
  2. David H Abramson2,
  3. Brian P Marr2,
  4. Jasmine H Francis2,
  5. Y Pierre Gobin1
  1. 1 Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurological Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 Ophthalmic Oncology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York,  New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Srikanth R Boddu, Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurological Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY 10065, USA; srb9017{at}med.cornell.edu

Abstract

Objective To evaluate fluoroscopic time and radiation dose parameters, and factors affecting these parameters, during selective ophthalmic artery chemosurgery (SOAC) for retinoblastoma.

Materials and methods Retrospective review from the prospective database of all patients with retinoblastoma treated with SOAC over a 5-year period (September 2009–January 2015) at a single institution after receiving institutional review board approval. Patient demographics, arterial approach, access device, side of treatment, number of SOAC cycles/patient, number of drugs/SOAC, and radiation parameters (outcome variables), including the fluoroscopic time, dose–area product (DAP), and total radiation dose, were obtained from the database. Generalized linear regression was used for univariate and multivariate analysis of the outcome variables.

Results In 218 patients (M:F=94:124), 272 eyes were treated by 833 SOAC infusions during 792 procedures. Mean age, weight, SOAC cycle/patient, and drugs/cycle were 19±19.5 months, 11.4±6.4 kg, 2.72±1.6, and 2.48±0.8, respectively. Mean fluoroscopic time, DAP, and doses were 10.2±8.4 min, 218.7±240.8 cGy.cm2, and 42.3±41.4 mGy, respectively. Radiation parameters (fluoroscopic time, DAP, and dose) were significantly lower (p<0.001) for the ophthalmic artery (OA) approach (7.5±5.4; 147.7±138.4; 28.5±29.4) than with middle meningeal artery (13.4±5.6; 242±138; 51.4±27) and balloon-assisted infusion in the internal carotid artery (ICA; 17.8±11.5; 449.8±361; 81.8±63.3). Radiation parameters for microcatheter access (8.6±7.1; 193.4±181.3; 42.3±37) were significantly lower (p<0.001) than with the ICA (17.8±11.5; 449.8±361; 81.8±63.3). Radiation parameters for bilateral IA chemotherapy (IAC; 16.8±11.6; 320.7±268.7; 60.8±45.6) were significantly higher (p<0.001) than for unilateral IAC (8.9±6.6; 212.7±247; 42±41).

Conclusions In SOAC for retinoblastoma, the OA approach, microcatheter access, and unilateral treatment were associated with significantly lower radiation parameters. We established benchmark radiation parameters for retinoblastoma SOAC in our patient cohort.

  • Malignant
  • Orbit
  • Pediatrics
  • Tumor

https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012758

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors YPG and SRB: contributed equally to data collection, analysis and preparation of the manuscript. YPG and DHA: contributed equally to project design and approval. DHA, BPM, JHF, and YPG: contributed equally to clinical follow-up and manuscript revisions. YPG and SPB: contributed to the interventional procedures.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval This study was approved by the Weill Cornell institutional review board.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement The authors agree to share any data on request. Any data from this study are available by contacting the corresponding author.