Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2024
Efficacy of a prolonged stability melphalan formulation for intra-arterial treatment of retinoblastoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jubran Jubran H, Luong Hanna, Naik Anant, Srinivasan Visish M, Ramasubramanian Aparna, Li Amanda, Scherschinski Lea, Feldman Michael J, Albuquerque Felipe C, Abruzzo Todd A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Melphalan, which is poorly soluble at room temperature, is widely used for the treatment of retinoblastoma by selective ophthalmic artery infusion. Evomela, a propylene glycol-free formulation of melphalan with improved solubility and stability, has recently been used as an alternative.To compare the safety and efficacy of Evomela with standard-formulation melphalan (SFM) in the treatment of retinoblastoma by selective ophthalmic artery infusion.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study of patients with retinoblastoma undergoing selective ophthalmic artery infusion with SFM or Evomela at a single institution. Cycle-specific percent tumor regression (CSPTR) was estimated by comparing photos obtained during pretreatment examination under anesthesia (EUA) with those obtained during post-treatment EUA 3-4 weeks later. CSPTR, ocular salvage rates, complication rates, operation times (unadjusted and adjusted for difficulty of ophthalmic artery catheterization), and intraprocedural dose expiration rates were compared between Evomela- and SFM-treated groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Ninety-seven operations (melphalan: 45; Evomela: 52) for 23 patients with 27 retinoblastomas were studied. The ocular salvage rate was 79% in the SFM-treated group and 69% in the Evomela-treated group. Multivariate regression controlling for tumor grade, patient age, and treatment history revealed no significant differences in ocular salvage rate, CSPTR, complication rates, or operation times. Although the dose expiration rate was higher for the SFM-treated group, the difference was not statistically significant. Notably, there were no ocular or cerebral ischemic complications.
CONCLUSION: Evomela has non-inferior safety and efficacy relative to SFM when used for the treatment of retinoblastoma by selective ophthalmic artery infusion.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study of patients with retinoblastoma undergoing selective ophthalmic artery infusion with SFM or Evomela at a single institution. Cycle-specific percent tumor regression (CSPTR) was estimated by comparing photos obtained during pretreatment examination under anesthesia (EUA) with those obtained during post-treatment EUA 3-4 weeks later. CSPTR, ocular salvage rates, complication rates, operation times (unadjusted and adjusted for difficulty of ophthalmic artery catheterization), and intraprocedural dose expiration rates were compared between Evomela- and SFM-treated groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Ninety-seven operations (melphalan: 45; Evomela: 52) for 23 patients with 27 retinoblastomas were studied. The ocular salvage rate was 79% in the SFM-treated group and 69% in the Evomela-treated group. Multivariate regression controlling for tumor grade, patient age, and treatment history revealed no significant differences in ocular salvage rate, CSPTR, complication rates, or operation times. Although the dose expiration rate was higher for the SFM-treated group, the difference was not statistically significant. Notably, there were no ocular or cerebral ischemic complications.
CONCLUSION: Evomela has non-inferior safety and efficacy relative to SFM when used for the treatment of retinoblastoma by selective ophthalmic artery infusion.