1. Ruthenium-106 brachytherapy and central uveal melanoma.
- Author
-
Grajewski L, Kneifel C, Wösle M, Ciernik IF, and Krause L
- Subjects
- Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Female, Aged, Adult, Retrospective Studies, Follow-Up Studies, Aged, 80 and over, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Tomography, Optical Coherence methods, Uveal Neoplasms radiotherapy, Uveal Neoplasms diagnosis, Brachytherapy methods, Brachytherapy adverse effects, Melanoma radiotherapy, Ruthenium Radioisotopes therapeutic use, Visual Acuity
- Abstract
Purpose: Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary ocular malignancy. The size and location of the tumor are decisive for brachytherapy with the β-emitting ruthenium-106 (Ru-106) plaque. The treatment of juxtapapillary and juxtafoveolar UM may be challenging because of the proximity or involvement of the macula and optic nerve and high recurrence rates., Methods: Central UMs were defined as lesions up to 5 mm off the optic disc or fovea radius of 5 mm. Between January 2011 and July 2020, we treated 56 patients with Ru-106-brachytherapy. The clinical outcomes for recurrence, visual acuity, and radiation-related toxicity were assessed. The follow-up was 66 (6-136) months., Results: Of the 56 patients (56 eyes), 8 (14%) suffered from local recurrence. Six relapsing UM in 19 (32%) patients were located close to the optic disc, and two patients had UM close to the macula (2/37, 5%) (p > 0.05). The overall eye-preservation rate was 89%. The pretreatment visual acuity (VA) was 0.45 and reduced to 0.26 after brachytherapy. Radiation retinopathy or optic neuropathy was detected in 7 (13%) patients and radiation maculopathy in 10 (17.9%). Six patients (11%) underwent enucleation for recurrence or radiation-induced ophthalmopathy., Conclusion: Central UMs are challenging to treat. UMs should be categorized as lesions laterally or medially to the fovea because of different long-term control rates. Localization near the optic disc requires thoughtful management., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Consent to participate: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Consent to publish: The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the images (Figs. 1, 5a and b). Ethics approval: This is an observational retrospective study. Therefore no ethical approval is required in Germany., (© 2025. The Author(s).)
- Published
- 2025
- Full Text
- View/download PDF