• Users Online: 9172
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Editorial board Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 113  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 33-38

Clinicopathologic evaluation of primary vs secondary enucleated unilateral group D retinoblastoma eyes


1 Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
2 Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
3 Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria; Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, Egypt

Date of Submission11-Feb-2020
Date of Acceptance15-Feb-2020
Date of Web Publication10-Jul-2020

Correspondence Address:
Ahmed M Seddeek
5 Street Abdelrahman Sedki Miami, Alexandria
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ejos.ejos_2_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background The risk of tumor spread is the main concern while deciding primary treatment in advanced unilateral retinoblastoma, which presents later with an intact normal eye. Enucleation was recommended as a radical treatment but with newer treatment options such as systemic and intra-arterial chemotherapy. Ocular salvage could be tried in group D eyes with smaller tumors and visual potential.
Aim The aim was to assess the histopathologic metastatic risk in primary vs secondary enucleated (trial salvage) unilateral group D eyes.
Design Retrospective, noncomparative, single-institution observational case series.
Patients and methods All primary and secondary enucleated unilateral group D eyes (June 2012 to December 2018) managed at the pediatric ocular oncology unit, Ophthalmology Department, University of Alexandria. Clinical, radiological, histopathologic, and treatment data were collected. Clinicopathologic correlation was performed to identify the frequency of high-risk histopathologic features (HRHF).
Statistical analysis All analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel 2013 software and SPSS software version 17.0.
Results Twenty-six eyes were included. Sixteen were primary enucleated and none showed HRHF while 10 were secondary enucleated after failed trial salvage. Timely enucleated secondary cases (6/10) showed no HRHF while delayed secondary enucleation (2/4) was significantly associated with HRHF (P=0.02). All cases are alive with no metastasis after a median follow-up of 5 years.
Conclusion Primary and timely secondary enucleation for unilateral group D retinoblastoma eyes are comparable in low metastatic risk and effectivity of tumor control. Controlled discussed trial ocular salvage is safe conditioned by strict timely termination, if necessary.

Keywords: cancer, enucleation, high-risk histopathologic features, unilateral retinoblastoma


How to cite this article:
Seddeek AM, Shaarawy AS, El Shakankiri NM, El Sabaa BM, Soliman SE. Clinicopathologic evaluation of primary vs secondary enucleated unilateral group D retinoblastoma eyes. J Egypt Ophthalmol Soc 2020;113:33-8

How to cite this URL:
Seddeek AM, Shaarawy AS, El Shakankiri NM, El Sabaa BM, Soliman SE. Clinicopathologic evaluation of primary vs secondary enucleated unilateral group D retinoblastoma eyes. J Egypt Ophthalmol Soc [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 15];113:33-8. Available from: http://www.jeos.eg.net/text.asp?2020/113/2/33/289487


  Introduction Top


Retinoblastoma is the most common intraocular malignancy of the pediatric age group [1], which originates from the retinal premature cells due to the biallelic mutation in the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor gene. Unilateral retinoblastoma occurs when this mutation affects only one retinal cell in most of the cases. Rarely, a low-penetrance germline mutation might present similarly [2],[3].

Unilateral retinoblastoma usually has late presentation due to the absence of visual symptoms by the intact vision in the normal eye [2],[3],[4]. In ∼85% of cases, retinoblastoma is classified as either group E or group D by the international intraocular retinoblastoma classification [5].

Previously, enucleation of advanced unilateral retinoblastoma was recommended as a radical treatment decision to avoid cancer spread and bad cosmetic outcomes of external beam irradiation [2].

With the introduction of newer treatment options such as systemic and intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC) [5],[6],[7], some of these group D eyes might be saved especially with smaller tumors that show visual potential. The main concern in such situation is the risk of tumor spread. Other concerns include cosmetic, psychosocial, and economic burden of trial salvage decision [8].

In this study, we retrospectively reviewed the potential risks in delaying enucleation by a trial salvage decision in unilateral group D eyes.


  Patients and methods Top


Ethics

The study was approved by the Faculty of Medicine Ethics Review Board and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki tenets.

Study design

This is a retrospective, noncomparative, single-institute observational case series.

All files of retinoblastoma children diagnosed and treated from June 2012 to December 2018 at the Pediatric Ocular Oncology Unit, Ophthalmology Department, University of Alexandria were reviewed. Any child with an enucleated eye (either primary or secondary enucleated) staged as International Intraocular Retinoblastoma Classification unilateral group D at diagnosis (International Intraocular Retinoblastoma Classification) was included [9].

Any unilateral group D eye was assigned to either trial salvage therapy or primary enucleation. Trial salvage includes initial chemotherapy (either systemic or IAC), followed by necessary consolidation focal therapies. Trial salvage choice was offered at the presence of first, potential for acceptable vision (tumor location relative to the macula or the optic disk determined clinically or by MRI); second, small tumor size measured by the MRI; and third, parents’ consent after thorough discussion of advantages and disadvantages of both lines of treatment. Secondary enucleation was performed if the tumor is nonresponsive, progressive, or refractory.

Collected clinical data included age, family history, clinical features at diagnosis, laterality, presenting symptoms, ocular and radiologic assessment, and time to enucleation. Radiologic data included tumor largest basal diameter by MRI. Treatment data included types of primary treatment and subsequent required therapies.

Histopathology of enucleated eyes was evaluated for the presence of high-risk histopathologic features (HRHF) defined as the presence of massive (>3 mm) choroidal invasion, retrolaminar optic nerve invasion, anterior chamber involvement, iris infiltration, ciliary muscle/body infiltration, scleral/extrascleral infiltration, or extraocular disease [10]. Any child with HRHF will be assigned to additional four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Eyes were retrospectively classified both clinically and pathologically after enucleation according to the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control Clinical Staging System (8th ed. cTNM and pTNM) [11].

Primary outcome is to evaluate the frequency of HRHF in primary and secondary enucleated eyes. Secondary outcome is to evaluate the impact of treatment delay on increasing risk of spread and treatment burden.

Statistics

All analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel 2013 software (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Washington, USA) and SPSS software version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). Risk factors to develop HRHF in primary and secondary enucleated eyes were calculated using Fisher’s exact test and t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. An α level of 0.05 and two-tailed P values were used to determine statistical significance.


  Results Top


Record review identified 26 children (17 females, 65%) with unilateral enucleated group D eyes that were eligible. The mean age at diagnosis was 27±11 months (range: 5–47 months) with positive parental family history in two children. Leukocoria was the main complaint in all cases. Ten children (38%) were offered trial ocular salvage while 16 eyes of 16 children were primarily enucleated. [Table 1] summarizes the clinical data of primary and secondary enucleated eyes.
Table 1 Comparison between the clinical data for the primary and secondary enucleation groups

Click here to view


Primary enucleated eyes (16) showed optic nerve obscuration in 14/16 eyes (88%), foveal obscurations in 16/16 (100%), retinal detachment with subretinal fluid in 8/16 (50%), and tumor seeding in 14/16 eyes (88%, cT2b). The largest basal diameter was 17±3 mm. Time to enucleation ranged from 5 days to 21 days. Primary enucleated eyes showed no HRHF in any of them. Fifteen eyes were pathologically staged as pT1 and one eye was classified as pT2a (concomitant focal choroidal and prelaminar optic nerve invasion, 3 weeks to enucleation). None of the children developed metastasis after a median of 4.3-year follow-up.

Secondary enucleation (10 eyes) was decided after 4–6 monthly cycles of systemic chemotherapy (Vincristine, Etoposide, Carboplatin) without signs of tumor control [12]. Six families consented and enucleation was performed within 6 months from diagnosis and none showed HRHF (pT1). Four families refused to have enucleation. Two families opted for additional IAC (1–3cycles) that did not show improvement and were eventually enucleated without any HRHF (pT1). Two families disappeared for 1 and 3 months, respectively, without treatments before approving enucleation and both eyes showed HRHF in the form of massive choroidal invasion (pT3a) that required additional four cycles of systemic chemotherapy as illustrated in [Figure 1].
Figure 1 Schematic representation of the treatment timeline of eyes failing trial salvage. The associated legend demonstrates different events including systemic chemotherapy and intra-arterial chemotherapy sessions, date of decision, while termination of timeline is time of enucleation. HRHF, high-risk histopathologic features.

Click here to view


None of the children developed metastasis after a median of 5.3-year follow-up.

Delay in enucleation when indicated, whether primary or secondary enucleated, was noticed in 4/26 (15.4%) eyes (all secondary enucleated) and was significantly associated with the presence of HRHF (Fisher’s exact test, P=0.018*).


  Discussion Top


There is an ongoing international debate regarding primary treatment decision for unilateral group D retinoblastoma eyes. On one side, primary enucleation will render the child cancer free especially after the histopathology confirms low risk of spread where around 20% (3–33%) of group D eyes will harbor HRHF. Furthermore, the child will avoid all the potential and local side effects of trial salvage. However, loss of any potential vision together with the parental cosmetic concerns will ensue [13].

On the contrary, primary salvage decision will try saving the eye for both vision and cosmesis given the low risk of tumor spread. This direction is currently prevailing especially with the introduction of newer salvage modalities including systemic and regional chemotherapy (intra-arterial and intravitreal) and plaque radiotherapy. However, it is not accepted to endanger children’s’ life trying to conserve globes with advanced tumors [14].

Retinoblastoma spread is anticipated when the histopathology of enucleated eyes show HRHF including massive tumor invasion to the choroid (>3 mm), retrolaminar optic nerve and/or anterior chamber invasion [10]. The presence of HRHF shows a 25% risk of metastasis and is present in around 20% of unilateral D eyes [13]. This gives an estimated metastatic risk of 5% in unilateral group D eyes [13]. Proper choice of the initial treatment strategy helps in preventing this risk.

Systemic chemotherapy in group D eyes has a 50–60% chance of globe salvage as reported from high-income countries [5]. In Alexandria, globe salvage was reported to be around 30% due to multiple socioeconomic and psychological factors that confound regularity of treatments [8].

Zhao et al. [15] reported that systemic chemotherapy masks preexisting HRHF and increase metastatic spread. They reported that greater than three cycles of chemotherapy reduces survival. Moreover, systemic complications including neutropenia, higher susceptibility to infections, and ototoxicity are frequent and were sometimes declined by parents [16].

IAC through the ophthalmic artery is an attractive treatment option as it treats intraocular tumor with minimal or no systemic side effects [7],[17]. It has reached up to 75% success of globe retention in group D eyes with few, but considerable local toxicity mainly vascular occlusions and transient nerve palsies [17],[18]. Although it seems a perfect option, it does not treat extraocular microscopic metastasis in those cases with initial high-risk features, where systemic chemotherapy is required to reduce the metastasis risk and prevent metastasis-related morbidity and mortality. Intravitreal chemotherapy has shown excellent control for vitreous seeds more than 90% without any risk of tumor spread. Vitreous seeds were a main factor of failed globe salvage previously [19],[20],[21],[22].

The primary decision is at diagnosis making any clinical sign that can predict high-risk features of tumor spread of utmost value. Most of the published literature tackled the clinical high-risk predictors of group E eyes like neovascularization of the iris, neovascular glaucoma, buphthalmos and aseptic orbital cellulits [23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28]. Meanwhile, few publications concentrated on group D eyes’ dilemma [13],[29],[30]. Berry and colleagues identified obscured optic nerve and loss of fundus view as clinical risk predictors of HRHF [31],[32]. Fabian et al. [29] postulated that absence of vitreous seeds at presentation was the only predictive factor found for HRHF based on their analysis of 40 group D eyes (both unilateral and bilateral).

Kletke et al. [13] identified three clinical parameters in unilateral group D eyes as predictors of low metastatic risk where trial salvage is safe to execute. Those parameters are visible optic nerve, foveal noninvolvement, and presence of less than one quadrant of retinal detachment. Any parameter predicted low risk in their cohort of 38 eyes. Our criteria for trial salvage in Alexandria are similar, where we try to save eyes with visual potential with free fovea and visible nerve. Using this protocol, we did not have any eyes with HRHF at the time of primary enucleation.

Multiple other factors play an important role in decision-making besides the clinical appearance of the eye. Kaliki et al. [24] reported that prolonged duration of symptoms of more than 6 months was associated with HRHF. Parental refusal of enucleation is a well-known obstacle to timely treatment due to cultural, religious, or psychological factors [33]. Proper detailed discussion with the family is usually sufficient to overcome that barrier.After taking into consideration all the aforementioned parameters, there is no guarantee that HRHF may occur later if tumor response is not sufficient for proper control. The physician should discuss before starting trial salvage the probability of secondary enucleation and the dangers of delaying enucleation. Our data has shown significant HRHF when delay in secondary enucleation occurred.

Trial salvage provides increasing hope of cure by families especially with investment of more time, money, and emotions into different treatment modalities. This can be justified in the context of bilateral disease but not in unilateral retinoblastoma when the other eye is perfectly normal [8],[14].

Parental shopping for the desired salvage treatments is a major concern, especially when the decision for termination of trial salvage is taken by the primary care physician. This further delays proper treatment and increase the metastatic risk.

In a report from Alexandria by Soliman et al. [8], trial salvage decision in unilateral group D eyes was associated with huge social, psychological, and economic burdens that contributed around 56% of failed salvage attempts. Furthermore, there was a fivefold increase in metastatic risk than primary enucleated unilateral eyes.

Our study was limited by its retrospective nature, small sample size, and limited evaluation of the associated socioeconomic parameters.


  Conclusion Top


All primary enucleated eyes in our study showed no risk for invasion, and all cases required no postenucleation adjuvant chemotherapy. They were not exposed to chemotherapy side effects and its socioeconomic and psychological burden. However, cases who started salvage therapy had a longer treatment duration with higher risk for developing micrometastasis.

Primary enucleation is an effective treatment option for unilateral group D retinoblastoma eyes, but controlled discussed trial ocular salvage is safe, conditioned by strict timely termination if necessary.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Shields CL, Shields JA. Basic understanding of current classification and management of retinoblastoma. Curr Opinion Ophthalmol 2006; 17:228–234.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Dimaras H, Corson TW, Cobrinik D, White A, Zhao J, Munier FL et al. Retinoblastoma. Nat Rev Dis Primer 2015; 1:1–23.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Soliman SE, Racher H, Zhang C, MacDonald H, Gallie BL. Genetics and molecular diagnostics in retinoblastoma − an update. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol 2017; 6:197–207.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Shields CL, Shields JA. Diagnosis and management of retinoblastoma. Cancer Control 2004; 11:317–327.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Shields CL, Mashayekhi A, Au AK, Czyz C, Leahey A, Meadows AT et al. The International Classification of Retinoblastoma predicts chemoreduction success. Ophthalmology 2006; 113:2276–2280.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Shields CL, Manjandavida FP, Lally SE, Pieretti G, Arepalli SA, Caywood EH et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma in 70 eyes: outcomes based on the international classification of retinoblastoma. Ophthalmology 2014; 121:1453–1460.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Yousef YA, Soliman SE, Astudillo PPP, Durairaj P, Dimaras H, Chan HS et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: a systematic review. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016; 134:584–591.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Soliman S, Dimaras H, Souka A, Ashry M, Gallie B. Socioeconomic and psychological impact of treatment for unilateral intraocular retinoblastoma. J Fr Ophtalmol 2015; 38:550–558.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Murphree AL. Intraocular retinoblastoma: the case for a new group classification. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 2005; 18:41–53.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Sastre X, Chantada GL, Doz F, Wilson MW, De Davila MT, Rodríguez-Galindo C et al. Proceedings of the consensus meetings from the International Retinoblastoma Staging Working Group on the pathology guidelines for the examination of enucleated eyes and evaluation of prognostic risk factors in retinoblastoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133:1199–1202.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Mallipatna AC, Gallie BL, Chévez-Barrios P et al. Retinoblastoma. In: Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL et al., editors. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York, NY: Springer 2017 819–831.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Kaliki S, Shields CL, Shah SU, Eagle RC, Shields JA, Leahey A. Postenucleation adjuvant chemotherapy with vincristine, etoposide, and carboplatin for the treatment of high-risk retinoblastoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2011; 129:1422–1427.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kletke SN, Feng ZX, Hazrati L-N., Gallie BL, Soliman SE. Clinical predictors at diagnosis of low-risk histopathology in unilateral advanced retinoblastoma. Ophthalmology 2019; 126:1306–1314.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Canadian RS. National Retinoblastoma Strategy Canadian Guidelines for Care: Stratégie thérapeutique du rétinoblastome guide clinique canadien. Can J Ophthalmol 2009; 44:S1.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Zhao J, Dimaras H, Massey C, Xu X, Huang D, Li B et al. Pre-enucleation chemotherapy for eyes severely affected by retinoblastoma masks risk of tumor extension and increases death from metastasis. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:845–851.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Soliman SE, D’Silva CN, Dimaras H, Dzneladze I, Chan H, Gallie BL. Clinical and genetic associations for carboplatin‐related ototoxicity in children treated for retinoblastoma: a retrospective noncomparative single‐institute experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2018; 65:e26931.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Abramson DH, Shields CL, Jabbour P, Teixeira LF, Fonseca JRF, Marques MCP et al. Metastatic deaths in retinoblastoma patients treated with intraarterial chemotherapy (ophthalmic artery chemosurgery) worldwide. Int J Retin Vitr. 2017; 3:40.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Abramson DH, Daniels AB, Marr BP, Francis JH, Brodie SE, Dunkel IJ et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy (ophthalmic artery chemosurgery) for group D retinoblastoma. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0146582.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Munier FL, Gaillard M-C, Balmer A, Soliman S, Podilsky G, Moulin AP et al. Intravitreal chemotherapy for vitreous disease in retinoblastoma revisited: from prohibition to conditional indications. Br J Ophthalmol 2012; 96:1078–1083.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Munier FL, Soliman S, Moulin AP, Gaillard M-C., Balmer A, Beck-Popovic M. Profiling safety of intravitreal injections for retinoblastoma using an anti-reflux procedure and sterilisation of the needle track. Br J Ophthalmol 2012; 96:1084–1087.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Francis JH, Abramson DH, Gaillard M-C, Marr BP, Beck-Popovic M, Munier FL. The classification of vitreous seeds in retinoblastoma and response to intravitreal melphalan. Ophthalmology 2015; 122:1173–1179.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Munier FL. Classification and management of seeds in retinoblastoma Ellsworth Lecture Ghent August 24th 2013. Ophthalmic Genet 2014; 35:193–207.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Kim ME, Shah S, Zolfaghari E, Jubran R, Reid MW, Kim JW et al. An intraocular pressure predictive of high-risk histopathologic features in group E retinoblastoma eyes. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2019; 59:77–86.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Kaliki S, Srinivasan V, Gupta A, Mishra DK, Naik MN. Clinical features predictive of high-risk retinoblastoma in 403 Asian Indian patients: a case-control study. Ophthalmology 2015; 122:1165–1172.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Brennan RC, Qaddoumi I, Billups CA, Free TL, Haik BG, Rodriguez-Galindo C et al. Comparison of high-risk histopathological features in eyes with primary or secondary enucleation for retinoblastoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2015; 99:1366–1371.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Kaliki S, Shields CL, Rojanaporn D, Al-Dahmash S, McLaughlin JP, Shields JA et al. High-risk retinoblastoma based on international classification of retinoblastoma: analysis of 519 enucleated eyes. Ophthalmology 2013; 120:997–1003.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Kashyap S, Meel R, Pushker N, Sen S, Bakhshi S, Sreenivas V et al. Clinical predictors of high risk histopathology in retinoblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2012; 58:356–361.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Wilson MW, Qaddoumi I, Billups C, Haik BG, Rodriguez-Galindo C. A clinicopathological correlation of 67 eyes primarily enucleated for advanced intraocular retinoblastoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2011; 95:553–558.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Fabian ID, Stacey AW, Chowdhury T, Duncan C, Karaa EK, Scheimberg I et al. High-risk histopathology features in primary and secondary enucleated international intraocular retinoblastoma classification group D eyes. Ophthalmology 2017; 124:851–858.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Chantada GL, Gonzalez A, Fandino A, de Davila MT, Demirdjian G, Scopinaro M et al. Some clinical findings at presentation can predict high-risk pathology features in unilateral retinoblastoma. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2009; 31:325–329.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Berry JL, Kogachi K, Jubran R, Kim JW. Loss of fundus view as an indication for secondary enucleation in retinoblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2018; 65:e26908.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Berry JL, Zolfaghari E, Chen A, Murphree AL, Jubran R, Kim JW. Optic nerve obscuration in retinoblastoma: a risk factor for optic nerve invasion. Ocul Oncol Pathol 2017; 3:283–291.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Olteanu C, Dimaras H. Enucleation refusal for retinoblastoma: a global study. Ophthalmic Genet 2016; 37:137–143.  Back to cited text no. 33
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Patients and methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed258    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded51    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]