Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of Ophthalmology logoLink to The British Journal of Ophthalmology
. 2005 Jun;89(6):730–738. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2004.052159

Laser photocoagulation for radiation retinopathy after ophthalmic plaque radiation therapy

P T Finger 1, M Kurli 2
PMCID: PMC1772675  PMID: 15923510

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the use of scatter laser photocoagulation to prevent radiation related retinopathy, maculopathy, and loss of vision.

Methods: This was an interventional case series. 66 eyes with posterior choroidal melanomas treated by ophthalmic plaque radiation therapy were reported. Of these patients, 50 were selected because they developed radiation retinopathy; 45 of these were treated with sector scatter laser photocoagulation to regress clinically evident radiation retinopathy. 16 additional patients (considered to be “high risk” to develop radiation retinopathy) were also treated.

Results: Radiation retinopathy was noted to appear at a mean interval of 26 months following plaque treatment. Laser photocoagulation regressed radiation retinopathy in 29 (64.4%) of the 45 patients treated after the onset of radiation retinopathy (17 with only retinopathy, 10 with a combination of retinopathy and maculopathy, and two with only maculopathy). Of the 16 patients who received laser treatment before clinical evidence of retinopathy, one developed radiation maculopathy and two retinopathy without maculopathy (all three responded to additional laser photocoagulation). In the 45 patient group, vision loss of more than three lines was attributable to radiation maculopathy in seven (15.5%). None of the patients in the prophylactic laser group lost more than three lines of vision as a result of maculopathy.

Conclusion: Sector scatter argon laser photocoagulation induced regression of radiation retinopathy. Though early treatment of radiation retinopathy appears to be more effective, a more long term and prospective randomised study will be needed to prove efficacy.

Keywords: laser photocoagulation, radiation, retinopathy, ophthalmic plaque, maculopathy

Radiation continues to have a crucial role in the treatment of ocular tumours.1 Unfortunately, secondary radiation associated keratopathy, cataract, glaucoma, vitreous haemorrhage, retinal detachment, chorioretinopathy, and optic neuropathy are reported vision limiting complications.2–6 Of these, radiation maculopathy is the most common cause of irreversible loss of central vision and blindness. Specifically, radiation therapy for choroidal melanoma has resulted in less than 20/200 vision in over 50% of patients (5 year follow up).2,6,7

In 1981, Chaudhuri et al reported a case of radiation retinopathy with secondary retinal and optic nerve neovascularisation that was successfully palliated with panretinal photocoagulation.8 Then, in 1988, Augsburger et al found that panretinal photocoagulation was helpful to preserve eyes with “ocular ischaemia” secondary to cobalt-60 plaque radiation.9 In 1997, Finger suggested that treating the irradiated zone with scatter laser photocoagulation was adequate to induce regression of plaque associated radiation retinopathy.2

Prospective randomised evidence that scatter laser photocoagulation can preserve vision in patients with regional retinal ischaemia has been provided by the Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (BRVO) Study. This study showed that laser treatment of ischaemic retina caused by a branch vein occlusion decreased the probability of vision loss (due to macular oedema and vitreous haemorrhage).10

We describe an interventional case series of patients treated with sector scatter laser photocoagulation to prevent progression of radiation retinopathy. We describe our methods of plaque brachytherapy, radiation dosimetry, laser photocoagulation, the incidence of retinopathy, and preservation of vision.

METHODS

Sixty six patients with posterior choroidal melanoma were included in this study (table 1). At the time of melanoma diagnosis, each patient participated in a detailed discussion of the risks and benefits of observation, radiation, and enucleation as it related to their tumour’s size, location, and risk of metastasis.2,11,12 Each patient chose to undergo plaque radiation therapy (table 2).

Table 1.

 Patient demographics and tumour data

Patient No Age Sex DM HTN Additional ocular disease Eye Tumour location Size (mm) TNM
Laser group Length Width Height
With retinopathy
1 63 F – Y – RE 530EP 12 9 2.8 T2N0M0
2 72 M – – Glaucoma LE 230EP 9 10 4.9 T2N0M0
3 84 M – – – LE 3EP 10 12 4.2 T2N0M0
4 52 M – – – RE 9EP 10.3 11 5.3 T2N0M0
5 56 F – – – RE 1EP 7 8 2.4 T1N0M0
6 81 F – – – RE 9EP 7 12 3.6 T2N0M0
7 67 M – Y – LE 230E 14 12.5 6.5 T2N0M0
8 86 M – – – LE 11E 10 12 6.2 T2N0M0
9 84 F – – – LE 430EP 6 8 4.4 T1N0M0
10 86 M – Y ARMD RE 1030EP 12 10 2.9 T2N0M0
11 34 F – – – RE 1PE 5 6 1.9 T1N0M0
12 72 M Y Y BDR LE 3EP 14 16 3.4 T2N0M0
13 86 F – Y – RE 1030EP 14 15 5.2 T2N0M0
14 72 M Y – – LE 230EP 10 10 3.4 T2N0M0
15 58 F – – – LE 1P 7 10 3.2 T2N0M0
16 81 M Y – – RE 230P 8 10 4.1 T2N0M0
17 55 F – Y – LE 230P 6 6 2.4 T1N0M0
18 68 F – – – LE 9EP 10 10 5.4 T2N0M0
19 86 F Y Y ARMD RE 730EP 12 13 5.4 T2N0M0
20 85 F – – Glaucoma LE 130EP 8 10 2.4 T2N0M0
21 86 F – – – RE 9EP 9 10 2.7 T2N0M0
22 71 F – – – RE 1030EP 8 9 2.4 T1N0M0
23 87 F – Y – LE 11PE 6 8 3.2 T1N0M0
24 59 F – – – LE 230EP 8 10 3 T2N0M0
25 62 F – Y – LE 9EP 10 10 3.5 T2N0M0
26 83 F – – – LE 430EP 9 9 2.9 T1N0M0
27 59 M – – – LE 4EP 10 12 2.7 T2N0M0
28 87 F Y Y BDR RE 430EP 10 10 2.7 T2N0M0
29 82 F – Y Glaucoma LE 3EP 6 6 3.5 T1N0M0
30 84 M – – ARMD LE 3EP 8 8 3.2 T1N0M0
31 82 M – – ARMD LE 430EP 9 12 3.4 T2N0M0
32 66 F – Y – RE 9EP 10 14 4.4 T2N0M0
33 70 M – – – RE 10EP 10 10 2.9 T2N0M0
34 55 M – – – RE 5P 7 8 5 T1N0M0
35 82 F Y Y – LE 230EP 12 10 3.4 T2N0M0
36 68 F – – – RE 6PE 14 12 5.8 T2N0M0
37 59 M – Y – RE 11P 8 8 2.4 T1N0M0
38 87 M – Y – RE 9EP 10 10 4.7 T2N0M0
39 73 F Y Y – RE 3EP 12 12 3.4 T2N0M0
40 54 M – – – RE 9EP 5 7 2.4 T1N0M0
41 66 M – – ARMD RE 4PE 9 9 3.7 T1N0M0
42 86 F – – – LE 9P 7 8 3.2 T1N0M0
43 79 M – – Glaucoma LE 130EP 9.9 10 2.9 T2N0M0
44 94 F Y Y – LE 3EP 10 10 2.4 T1N0M0
45 79 F – – – LE 430EP 10 10 2.7 T2N0M0
Prophylactic group
1 53 F – – – RE 1030EP 10 16 4 T2N0M0
2 66 M – – – LE 2EP 9 9 2.4 T1N0M0
3 78 F – – – LE 9EP 10.5 8 3 T2N0M0
4 31 M – – – LE 1P 9 10 3.6 T2N0M0
5 82 F – Y – RE 6E 12 13 3.2 T2N0M0
6 51 M – – – RE 12P 4 6 2.2 T1N0M0
7 59 F – – – LE 2EP 11 13 3.6 T2N0M0
8 83 F – – Glaucoma LE 2EP 9 11 2.7 T2N0M0
9 70 M Y – – LE 9E 12 16 4.9 T2N0M0
10 77 F – – Glaucoma RE 1030EP 6 7 2.5 T1N0M0
11 67 F – – ARMD RE 3PE 7 8 2 T1N0M0
12 68 M – – – LE 5EP 9 10 3.6 T2N0M0
13 47 M – – Glaucoma/BRVO RE 3PE 6 7 2.7 T1N0M0
14 86 F – Y ARMD RE 730EP 7 10 2.4 T1N0M0
15 87 M – Y Glaucoma RE 9P 8 8 2.8 T1N0M0
16 82 F Y Y BDR RE 1030EP 11 11 2.6 T2N0M0
Open in a new tab

DM, diabetes mellitus; HTN, hypertension; ARMD, age related macular degeneration; BDR, background diabetic retinopathy; BRVO, branch retinal vein occlusion; E, equator; P, posterior; TNM, AJCC-UICC classification.

Table 2.

 Plaque parameters

Patients Plaque size (mm) Distance to fovea (mm) Distance to optic nerve (mm) Dose (Gy)
Laser group Fovea Optic nerve Apex
With retinopathy
1 16 7.5 4.5 12.7 31.9 72.3
2 14 8 9 23.4 17.0 80.0
3 16 0 3.5 117.0 34.5 70.0
4 16 5 8 45.3 17.7 76.6
5 12 8 5 11.5 22.4 73.4
6 16 1 4.5 215.3 65.1 81.0
7 18 1 2 121.2 86.8 72.6
8 16 8 6 29.4 66.8 80.0
9 16 2 3.5 141.6 59.8 80.0
10 16 2.5 2 62.4 39.7 70.6
11 12 4.5 3 48.5 78.0 100.0
12 20 8 12 17.4 4.2 71.0
13 20 6 3 24.7 39.7 75.2
14 14 1.5 4.2 71.1 27.9 70.0
15 14 2.5 0 271.8 104.0 86.0
16 14 4.5 0 86.8 148.6 87.8
17 12 0.5 1 160.7 68.8 100.0
18 14 7 10 7.6 12.3 80.1
19 18 3 7 18.3 21.1 75.9
20 14 3 5 33.7 17.8 80.0
21 14 3 5 66.8 24.4 80.0
22 14 0.5 4 113.9 25.6 69.0
23 14 6 1.5 45.0 69.0 80.0
24 14 2.5 3.5 55.7 38.5 69.7
25 14 4.5 1.5 32.6 63.3 70.0
26 14 0 1.1 199.0 53.3 80.0
27 16 1 4 106.4 26.8 89.7
28 14 8 6 19.8 32.8 80.0
29 14 0 3.4 254.0 86.9 77.0
30 12 3 6.4 88.7 28.1 90.0
31 16 10 14 7.3 4.1 70.5
32 18 1.5 6 74.1 20.9 79.5
33 14 1 4 94.4 30.4 80.5
34 16 2.75 0 139.1 182.6 67.1
35 12 1 3 148.6 44.6 80.0
36 18 3 0 20.5 15.6 74.6
37 12 0 0 124.3 102.9 80.2
38 16 3 6.5 76.9 26.7 80.1
39 14 6.4 3 19.3 44.2 80.0
40 12 3 6 39.6 17.1 70.0
41 14 4.5 2.0 37.4 109.9 69.7
42 16 4 0 27.3 79.9 66.0
43 14 7 5 15.7 20.6 76.7
44 14 0 3.6 223.0 64.7 80.0
45 14 6 7.5 33.1 19.0 80.0
Prophylactic group
1 14 2 4 80.3 36.6 78.3
2 14 2.5 4.5 50.0 22.7 74.4
3 16 4.4 1 33.2 67.1 73.6
4 14 2 0 49.0 72.8 73.3
5 18 6.5 5 15.7 23.6 75.0
6 12 3 0 84.3 357.1 75.7
7 18 0.5 1 31.8 21.5 75.0
8 16 6 8 19.4 12.2 75.5
9 20 10 6 10.8 16.3 68.7
10 12 1.5 4.5 93.3 28.9 72.9
11 12 5.5 2 19.1 44.4 77.1
12 14 6 5 23.8 29.2 77.4
13 12 4 0 34.8 104.1 77.6
14 14 4 5 31.8 17.4 74.0
15 12 5 8.4 24.1 55.8 75.0
16 16 2.5 5 48.2 19.9 76.1
Open in a new tab

After plaque irradiation, 50 patients developed radiation retinopathy and were offered sector laser photocoagulation (table 3). In this group, the mean follow up (since plaque treatment) was 72.6 months. The mean onset from irradiation to retinopathy was 25.9 months. In all, 45 of the 50 were treated. This required a mean 2.75 (range 1–9) laser sessions per eye (table 3). The mean follow up after their initial laser treatment has been 48 months (table 4).

Table 3.

 Onset of retinopathy and laser treatments

Patients Onset of RR (months) Stage RR Maculopathy Initial laser(months) Lasertreatments
Laser group Before laser (months) After laser (months)
With retinopathy
1 16 1 – – 16 1
2 37 1 – – 37 1
3 19 1 – – 19 3
4 10 1 – 12 10 2
5 11 1 – – 20 1
6 44 2 44 - 44 2
7 16 1 - – 16 1
8 12 3 – – 12 3
9 55 2 55 – 55 4
10 17 1 17 – 17 1
11 10 1 – – 26 3
12 19 2 19 – 19 3
13 8 1 – – 8 1
14 14 2 14 – 14 2
15 34 1 – – 34 1
16 15 1 – – 16 9
17 24 1 – 33 30 1
18 16 2 16 – 19 2
19 8 2 8 – 8 3
20 50 2 50 – 51 1
21 32 2 32 – 32 4
22 12 3 12 – 12 7
23 27 1 – 39 30 7
24 11 3 14 – 18 1
25 24 1 – – 24 3
26 58 3 58 – 59 6
27 20 1 – 50 32 3
28 23 1 – – 24 3
29 34 1 – – 38 3
30 72 2 72 – 72 2
31 26 3 26 – 28 2
32 27 2 – 41 27 2
33 11 1 – – 11 4
34 28 1 – – 36 3
35 9 1 9 – 9 2
36 14 2 14 – 36 3
37 26 2 26 – 26 3
38 44 2 44 – 52 1
39 19 1 – – 19 2
40 13 2 13 – 13 5
41 16 1 – – 16 1
42 107 4 – – 107 3
43 12 1 – – 12 2
44 20 1 – – 25 2
45 18 1 – – 19 5
Prophylactic group
1 – – – – 7 1
2 – – – – 8 1
3 – – – – 7 1
4 13 1 – – 8 1
5 – – – – 5 1
6 – – – – 7 1
7 – – – – 8 2
8 – – – – 18 2
9 – – – – 16 1
10 – – – – 11 1
11 – – – – 8 1
12 18 1 – – 8 2
13 13 1 – 21 9 6
14 – – – – 11 1
15 – – – – 7 1
16 – – – – 8 1
Open in a new tab

RR, radiation retinopathy; Onset of RR, maculopathy; Initial laser, months after plaque treatment; Stage, finger classification.

Table 4.

 Regression of retinopathy and follow up

Patients Regression Persistent RR New RR Visual acuity Follow up (months) after
Laser group RR Maculopathy Post-laser Post-laser Pre-laser Recent 1st laser plaque
With retinopathy
1 16 – – – 20 20 23 49
2 2 – – – 25 20 37 72
3 12 – – – 250 400 43 59
4 17 17 – – 20 63 18 26
5 1 – – – 20 16 1 19
6 42 42 – – 100 160 99 141
7 4 – – – 32 32 7 20
8 27 – – – 25 800 38 48
9 – – Y – 50 250 93 128
10 – – Y – 32 32 36 52
11 52 – – – 20 20 54 78
12 22 22 – – 40 25 44 58
13 12 – – – 25 20 15 20
14 28 28 – – 20 250 34 54
15 – – Y – 20 20 3 37
16 8 – – – 30 200 51 66
17 41 41 – – 125 FC 72 98
18 – – Y – 250 400 69 88
19 – – Y – 160 FC 12 19
20 – – – Y 25 125 33 80
21 – – – Y 50 FC 64 92
22 41 41 – – 20 100 43 57
23 – – Y – 125 400 105 132
24 23 23 – – 20 25 27 37
25 29 – – – 20 20 29 51
26 64 64 – – 100 160 85 142
27 66 66 – – 400 200 85 116
28 – – – Y 63 80 60 84
29 106 – – – 80 FC 121 154
30 33 33 – – 250 FC 50 123
31 – – – Y 63 160 21 47
32 – – Y – 100 HM 108 132
33 – – Y – 30 FC 67 78
34 2 – – – 25 125 11 45
35 – – – Y 100 NLP 78 85
36 – – – Y 50 150 0.5 36
37 13 13 – – 40 25 61 85
38 – – – Y 100 80 23 54
39 47 – – – 20 25 50 68
40 43 43 – – 20 80 46 56
41 16 – – – 20 20 25 37
42 15 – – – 63 32 48 152
43 – – – Y 20 125 7 17
44 8 – – – 40 50 74 98
45 19 – – – 25 32 78 84
Prophylactic group
1 – – – – 20 20 14 21
2 – – – – 40 40 22 29
3 – – – – 20 20 0.25 7
4 10 – – – 32 20 18 24
5 – – – – 20 20 14 17
6 – – – – 32 32 3 9
7 – – – – 20 HM 32 40
8 – – – – 25 25 19 29
9 – – – – 25 20 47 53
10 – – – – 25 20 10 19
11 – – – – 40 40 0.5 8
12 14 – – – 20 20 18 29
13 24 24 – – 16 32 29 36
14 – – – – 40 50 19 24
15 – – – – 40 40 1 6
16 – – – – 20 20 18 21
Open in a new tab

RR, radiation retinopathy; Stage, finger classification; Regression, months after laser; FC, finger counting; HM, hand motion; NLP, no light perception.

All patients treated with laser photocoagulation underwent a detailed discussion of the risks and potential benefits of therapy. At applicable, each patient signed a treatment consent and HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) form. The 45 patient group consisted of consecutive patients, whose retinas displayed signs of radiation retinopathy and who were willing to be treated by laser photocoagulation.

High risk patients

In 2000, we reported that choroidal melanomas centred posterior to the equator were at relatively high risk for radiation maculopathy and loss of central vision.12 Since these observations, an additional group of 16 consecutive “high risk”(posterior tumours) eyes were given prophylactic laser treatment to prevent radiation retinopathy or maculopathy (table 3). No other factors other than those mentioned above and the patient’s willingness to be treated influenced their inclusion in this group. This second group’s mean follow up (since plaque treatment) was 23.2 months (table 4). Laser treatment required a mean 1.5 sessions and their follow up (since laser) has averaged 16.5 months. To date, three eyes (19%) have developed radiation retinopathy at 13, 18, and 21 months after laser (table 4).

Clinical evaluations

A complete eye examination, history and COMS (Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study) type visual acuity determinations were performed. Standardised refractions were performed in COMS approved examination rooms with regulated lighting and backlit ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) charts. The tumor’s basal dimensions were determined by ophthalmoscopy (direct, indirect, and contact lens techniques as needed), fluorescein angiography, 2D and 3D B-scan ultrasonography (table 1).13,14 Fundus photography and fluorescein angiography were used to evaluate changes in tumour circulation, for chorioretinal leakage, intraretinal microangiopathy, retinal neovascularisation, retinal haemorrhage, capillary dropout, and cystoid macular oedema. Patients were re-evaluated at every 4–6 month intervals after plaque radiation therapy. Angiography was employed on a yearly basis or earlier if any signs or symptoms of radiation retinopathy were noted on clinical examination.

Radiation treatment

Our methods of plaque radiation therapy have been described.6,14–17 In sum, palladium-103 seeds (103Pd) were available at strengths of up to 5 mCi/seed (Theragenics Corp, Buford, GA, USA) and affixed into gold COMS-type eye plaques (Trachsel Dental Studio Inc. Rochester, MN, USA) with a thin layer of acrylic fixative (table 2). Our dosimetric calculations, techniques of tumour localisation and episcleral plaque insertion have been described.6,17,18 All patients received one brachytherapy treatment. Plaque brachytherapy started at insertion and continued until the prescribed dose was delivered (table 2). We used the COMS suggested apical dose rates of 50–125 cGy/h. Unlike COMS, but as consistent with the current recommendations of the American Brachytherapy Society, the prescription point was always the tumour’s apex.6,18 The mean apex dose (in this series) was 77 Gy (table 2).

Radiation vasculopathy

Closure of blood vessels is one of the central effects of ionising radiation. This characteristic has been exploited in the treatment of cancer and vascular disease.19

The histopathology of radiation induced ischaemic vasculopathy reveals the destruction of the endothelial cells and pericytes that maintain blood vessel walls.19 Microaneurysms develop in acellular and poorly supported capillaries. These changes alter blood flow patterns and produce alternative channels with thickened and fenestrated walls.19 This effect is dependent on the mitotic activity of the irradiated cells and the radiation dose over time. It is no surprise that one of the most common fluorescein findings after radiation therapy of choroidal melanomas is closure of blood vessels within and around the tumour. This effect is seen to a lesser degree (at a lower dose) in the tissues surrounding the targeted zone.

Finger classification of radiation retinopathy

Owing to the lack of a prognosis related classification for radiation retinopathy, and the need for a common language for comparative studies, this study prompted the creation of the classification presented in table 5.20 There are certain pre-proliferative findings associated with radiation treatment of the eye.4,21 Ophthalmoscopy is best used to view such common findings as cotton wool spots, retinal haemorrhages, ghost vessels, exudates and the less frequent retinal microaneurysms and uveal effusions. Fluorescein and indocyanine green angiography are typically used to define the extent of retinal ischaemia and vascular anomalies (table 5).22,23

Table 5.

 Finger classification of radiation retinopathy

Stage Sign Symptom Location Best viewed by Risk of vision loss
1 Cottonwool spots None Extramacular Ophthalmoscopy Mild
Retinal haemorrhages None Extramacular Ophthalmoscopy Mild
Retinal micro-aneurysms None Extramacular Ophthalmoscopy Mild
Ghost vessels None Extramacular Ophthalmoscopy Mild
Exudate None Extramacular Ophthalmoscopy Mild
Uveal effusion None Extramacular Ophthalmoscopy Mild
Chorioretinal atrophy None Extramacular Ophthalmoscopy Mild
Choroidopathy None Extramacular Angiography Mild
Retinal ischaemia (<5 DA) None Extramacular Angiography Mild
2 Above findings None Macular Both Moderate
3 Any combination of the above plus
Retinal neovascularisation Vision loss Extramacular Angiography Severe
Macular oedema—new onset Vision loss Macular Angiography Severe
4 Any combination of the above plus
Vitreous haemorrhage Vision loss Vitreous Ophthalmoscopy Severe
Retinal ischaemia (> or  = 5 DA) Vision loss Extramacular and macular Angiography Severe
Open in a new tab

DA, disc areas.

Vision loss must be related to associated sign(s).

When located outside the macula, stage 1 findings are consistent with excellent central vision and a good visual prognosis (mild risk). In contrast, stage 2 radiation retinopathy requires that these pathological findings are located in the macula and therefore carry a more guarded prognosis for vision (moderate risk).

When the eye enters stage 3, some vision loss has probably occurred and the prognosis for return to pretreatment vision is poor (severe risk). Despite its location, the presence of retinal neovascularisation is ominous. It suggests a profound ischaemic drive and carries a worse prognosis for long term visual acuity (table 5). Vitreous haemorrhage, large areas of retinal ischaemia, and iris neovascularisation are associated with a worse prognosis for vision and globe salvage (table 5). Vitreous haemorrhage clouds our ability to use laser treatment and to monitor the progression of radiation retinopathy. Patients who present with vitreous haemorrhage often have occult neovascularisation and are at risk for ghost cell or neovascular glaucoma.24

Radiation retinopathy and regression

Radiation retinopathy was treated based on the appearance of any of the following stage 1 findings: retinal haemorrhages, cottonwool spots, intraretinal microangiopathy, exudation, choroidopathy (as seen on angiography), retinal ischaemia (seen clinically or on the angiogram) or other ischaemic changes such as neovascularisation of the iris or retina as seen in the later stages (table 5). Radiation maculopathy was defined as when one or more of these findings were found to affect the macular retina.4,21 Patients in this series were staged as their retinopathy appeared before their first laser treatment.

Regression of radiation retinopathy was defined as the disappearance or regression of the above findings. Patients who were noted to have regression did not progress to stages 2 to 4 within the follow up duration of this study.

Laser photocoagulation

Plaque radiation therapy creates a zone of ischaemia within and immediately surrounding the targeted zone (beneath the plaque). As the prescribed radiation dose increases, so does the area of surrounding ischaemic tissue. In a first study, it seemed most reasonable to treat the targeted tissue that was located beneath the plaque during radiation therapy. Therefore, a sector of argon laser photocoagulation was typically placed over the tumour surface and a surround of 2–3 mm. This initial pattern of laser was distributed within the area of choroid, retina, and tumour that was directly beneath the plaque during brachytherapy. As needed, this area was enlarged as to include new areas of intraretinal microangiopathy and retinal neovascularisation as demonstrated on fluorescein angiography. Typical laser settings included a 200 μm spot size, 0.1–0.2 ms duration, and 100–300 mW. The number of spots depended on the size of the tumour. A tight pattern of scatter laser photocoagulation was employed. Care was taken to avoid photocoagulation of the fovea or optic nerve.

RESULTS

Control of radiation retinopathy

Sector argon laser photocoagulation performed after the first sign of radiation retinopathy resulted in regression in 29 (64.4%) of the 45 patients with retinopathy before laser (fig 1). In this group, 19 (42.2%) of the 45 patients presented with radiation maculopathy before laser. Only five (19.2%) of the 26 patients with extramacular retinopathy progressed to macular involvement despite laser treatment. Nine (47.4%) of the 19 macular retinopathies at the time of initial laser were found to regress (table 4).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

 A composite photograph showing a pretreatment fundus photograph (A), and a photograph demonstrating radiation retinopathy at 24 months (B). A fluorescein angiogram demonstrates intraretinal microangiopathy next to the tumour (C), and regression to chorioretinal scar after laser photocoagulation (D).

Laser treatment was considered to be a failure if the retinopathy persisted or new ischaemic changes developed. Of the 16 patients in whom the retinopathy did not regress after laser, eight had persistence of their retinopathy and eight had development of new retinal findings (cystoid macular oedema (n = 4), new neovascularisation (n = 3) and iris neovascularisation (n = 1)).

Prevention of radiation retinopathy

Of the 16 high risk patients treated before onset of clinically detectable radiation retinopathy, one developed radiation maculopathy and two had radiation retinopathy outside the macula (table 3). In all three cases additional photocoagulation was added which enlarged the sector of treatment and resulted in regression of the radiation retinopathy (fig 2). No persistence of retinopathy or development of new ischaemic changes were seen.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

 This patient received prophylactic laser on and around the tumour and went on to develop radiation retinopathy (A, B). His retinopathy regressed after additional extramacular laser photocoagulation resulting in resolution of his radiation maculopathy and most recently was found to maintain 20/25 vision at 43 months follow up (C, D).

Vision results

Radiation maculopathy was the most common cause of vision loss in this study. Of the 45 patients who received laser after the onset of radiation retinopathy, 21 (46.7%) patients lost three or more lines of vision (table 4). In this group, the primary reason for vision loss was (n = 7) (33.7%) radiation maculopathy, (n = 3) persistent exudative macular detachments, (n = 2) radiation optic neuropathy, (n = 2) vitreous haemorrhage, (n = 2) macular degeneration, (n = 2) diabetic maculopathy, (n = 1) neovascular glaucoma, (n = 1) macular pucker/cataract, and (n = 1) retinal macroaneurysm with macular exudation. Of the five patients with radiation retinopathy who did not have laser, two lost more than three lines of vision and three have maintained stable acuities (table 4).

Of the 16 patients who received laser treatment before clinical evidence of retinopathy, one developed radiation maculopathy and two developed retinopathy without maculopathy (all three responded to additional laser photocoagulation) (table 4). No patients in the prophylactic laser group lost more than three lines of vision as a result of maculopathy (table 4).

Side effects of laser treatment

Few side effects could be related to laser treatment. Patients were counselled that they might experience deepening or widening of their tumour related scotoma. Five experienced this symptom. They were also warned of possible secondary haemorrhages, cystoid macular oedema, and the chance of laser to the fovea, but none was noted.

Statistical analysis

We attempted to compare statistically the incidence of radiation retinopathy in the two groups involved in this study. But since we had selected patients found to have radiation retinopathy for inclusion in the first group (n = 45), we could not reasonably compare them to those just at risk (n = 16). The mean onset of retinopathy in the radiation retinopathy group was 26 months and the mean follow up in the prophylactic group was 23.2 months. The onset of retinopathy could not be statistically matched to the length of follow up in the prophylactic group for comparison.

DISCUSSION

Ophthalmic radiation therapy has been reported to cause cataract, scleral necrosis, radiation retinopathy, and optic neuropathy.2 Radiation dose is a dominant factor. It is clear that the use of larger radiation doses increases the incidence of radiation related complications and decreases the probability of repairing them (for example, with laser photocoagulation).2,14

Cataract and radiation retinopathy are the most common vision limiting radiation associated complications seen after plaque treatment.2,12 Unlike radiation cataracts (that are amenable to surgical rehabilitation) radiation maculopathy has been the leading cause of permanent and severe vision loss.2,5 Clearly, a method to prevent or treat radiation maculopathy will decrease blindness associated with plaque radiation therapy.

Finger noted a close relation between the plaque/tumour position and the location of subsequent radiation oculopathy.12 Specifically, compared to 4% of patients with anterior uveal melanomas, 52% of patients (p <0.0001) with posterior choroidal melanoma developed retinopathy secondary to plaque brachytherapy in that series.12 Similarly, a separate study reported that of 1300 patients treated with plaque radiotherapy for posterior uveal melanomas, 42% developed radiation retinopathy at 5 years.5 Clearly, these studies define which patients are at greatest risk for radiation retinopathy and those who should be included in a preventative trial.

In this study, sector argon laser photocoagulation treatment regressed clinically evident radiation retinopathy in 64.4% patients with early onset retinopathy and 100% of “breakthrough” patients treated before developing radiation retinopathy. These findings suggest that scatter argon laser photocoagulation of the radiation targeted zone is effective in preventing or regressing radiation retinopathy. They also suggest that intervention before clinically apparent radiation retinopathy may be more effective than treatment after its onset. Prevention of radiation retinopathy is particularly important when considering the radiation maculopathy patient. Here, prevention is much more likely to preserve vision than treatment after its onset.

Treatment of radiation retinopathy is a very important subject worthy of exposure, discussion, and attention within the ophthalmic community. Local tumour control rates after ophthalmic plaque radiation therapy are greater than 90% in most series; unfortunately vision retention rates after plaque radiation therapy are typically poor (typically 20/200 or less in these reports after 5 years).2,6,25 It is reasonable to assume that plaque radiation related ischaemic oculopathy is similar to other regional ocular ischaemic processes (for example, branch vein occlusion).10 Therefore, it makes sense that laser ablation of the ischaemic zone may benefit long term vision retention.

This study suggests that sector scatter laser photocoagulation can be used to regress radiation retinopathy, preserve patient vision and ocular health. Despite these positive findings we believe that a controlled, randomised clinical trial should be performed to establish a statistically significant proof of benefit and to develop practice guidelines for the treatment of radiation retinopathy.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr Goupei Yu from the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, for his help with the statistical analysis involved with this study. We also thank Dr Frederick, Boston, MA, USA, for sharing in patient care.

Abbreviations

  • ARMD, age related macular degeneration

  • BDR, background diabetic retinopathy

  • BRVO, branch retinal vein occlusion

  • DM, diabetes mellitus

  • HTN, hypertension

  • RR, radiation retinopathy

This research was supported by The EyeCare Foundation, Inc and Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, USA

The authors have no proprietary interest in the technology mentioned in this study.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Sagerman RH, Alberti WE. Radiotherapy of intraocular and orbital tumors. 2nd ed. Vol 1. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2003:1–295.
  • 2.Finger PT. Radiation therapy for choroidal melanoma. Surv Ophthalmol 1997;42:215–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sagerman RH, Alberti WE. Radiosensitivity of ocular and orbital structures. In: Sagerman RH, Alberti WE, eds. Radiotherapy of intraocular and orbital tumors. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2003;2:269–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Guyer DR, Mukai S, Egan KM, et al. Radiation maculopathy after proton beam irradiation for choroidal melanoma. Ophthalmology 1992;99:1278–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gunduz K, Shields CL, Shields JA, et al. Radiation retinopathy following plaque radiotherapy for posterior uveal melanoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:609–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Finger PT, Berson A, Ng T, et al. Palladium–103 plaque radiotherapy for choroidal melanoma: an 11-year study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:1438–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Melia BM, Abramson DH, Albert DM, et al. Collaborative ocular melanoma study (COMS) randomized trial of I-125 brachytherapy for medium choroidal melanoma. I. Visual acuity after 3 years COMS report no. 16. Ophthalmology 2001;108:348–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chaudhuri PR, Austin DJ, Rosenthal AR. Treatment of radiation retinopathy. Br J Ophthalmol 1981;65:623–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Augsburger JJ, Roth SE, Magargal LE, et al. Panretinal photocoagulation for radiation–induced ocular ischemia. Ophthalmic Surg 1987;18:589–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Branch Vein Occlusion Study Group. Argon laser scatter photocoagulation for prevention of neovascularization and vitreous hemorrhage in branch vein occlusion. A randomized clinical trial. Arch Ophthalmol 1986;104:34–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.The COMS Study Group. Assessment of metastatic disease status at death in 435 patients with large choroidal melanoma in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS): COMS report no. 15. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:670–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Finger PT. Tumour location affects the incidence of cataract and retinopathy after ophthalmic plaque radiation therapy. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:1068–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Romero JM, Finger PT, Iezzi R, et al. Three–dimensional ultrasonography of choroidal melanoma: extrascleral extension. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;126:842–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Finger PT, Romero JM, Rosen RB, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasonography of choroidal melanoma: localization of radioactive eye plaques. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:305–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Finger PT, Moshfeghi DM, Ho TK. Palladium 103 ophthalmic plaque radiotherapy. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:1610–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Finger PT, Lu D, Buffa A, et al. Palladium-103 versus iodine-125 for ophthalmic plaque radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;27:849–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Finger PT, Buffa A, Mishra S, et al. Palladium 103 plaque radiotherapy for uveal melanoma. Clinical experience. Ophthalmology 1994;101:256–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nag S, Quivey JM, Earle JD, et al. The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for brachytherapy of uveal melanomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:544–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Archer DB, Amoaku WM, Gardiner TA. Radiation retinopathy-clinical, histopathological, ultrastructural and experimental correlations. Eye 1991;5:239–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Finger PT. Guest editorial: Do you speak ocular tumor? Ophthalmology 2003;110:13–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Brown GC, Shields JA, Sanborn G, et al. Radiation retinopathy. Ophthalmology 1982;89:1494–501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Spaide RF, Borodoker N, Shah V. Atypical choroidal neovascularization in radiation retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;133:709–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Spaide RF, Leys A, Hermann-Delamazure B, et al. Radiation-associated choroidal neovasculopathy. Ophthalmology 1999;106:2254–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Spraul CW, Grossniklaus HE. Vitreous hemorrhage. Surv Ophthalmol 1997;42:3–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Diener-West M, Earle JD, Fine SL, et al. The COMS randomized trial of iodine 125 brachytherapy for choroidal melanoma, III: initial mortality findings. COMS Report No 18. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:969–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of Ophthalmology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES