English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

PurposeIntraocular retinoblastoma treatments often combine chemotherapy and focal treatments. A first prospective protocol of conservative treatments in our institution showed the efficacy of the use of two courses of chemoreduction with etoposide and carboplatin, followed by chemothermotherapy using carboplatin as a single agent and diode laser. In order to decrease the possible long-term toxicity of chemotherapy due to etoposide, a randomized neoadjuvant phase II protocol was conducted using vincristine-carboplatin vs etoposide-carboplatin.Patients and methodsThe study was proposed when initial tumor characteristics did not allow front-line local treatments. Patients included in this phase II noncomparative randomized study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy received vincristin-carboplatin (new arm) vs etoposide-carboplatin (our reference arm). They were subsequently treated by local treatments and chemothermotherapy. Primary end point was the need for secondary enucleation or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) not exceeding 40% at 2 years.ResultsA total of 65 eyes in 55 children were included in the study (May 2004 to August 2009). Of these, 32 eyes (27 children) were treated in the arm etoposide-carboplatin and 33 eyes (28 children) in the arm vincristin-carboplatin. At 2 years after treatment, 23/33 (69.7%) eyes were treated and salvaged without EBRT or enucleation in the arm vincristin-carboplatin and 26/32 (81.2%) in the arm etoposide-carboplatin.ConclusionEven if the two treatment arms could be considered as sufficiently active according to the study decision rules, neoadjuvant chemotherapy by two cycles of vincristine-carboplatin followed by chemothermotherapy appear to offer less optimal local control than the etoposide-carboplatin combination.

Conservative treatment of retinoblastoma: a prospective phase II randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by local treatments and chemothermotherapy