Skip to main content
The British Journal of Ophthalmology logoLink to The British Journal of Ophthalmology
. 2003 Dec;87(12):1497–1503. doi: 10.1136/bjo.87.12.1497

Palladium-103 plaque radiation therapy for macular degeneration: results of a 7 year study

P T Finger 1,3, Y P Gelman 1, A M Berson 1,2, A Szechter 2
PMCID: PMC1920583  PMID: 14660461

Abstract

Aim: To report 7 year results of ophthalmic plaque radiotherapy for exudative macular degeneration.

Methods: In a phase I clinical trial, 30 patients (31 eyes) were treated with ophthalmic plaque irradiation for subfoveal exudative macular degeneration. Radiation was delivered to a mean 2 mm from the inner sclera (range 1.2–2.4) prescription point calculated along the central axis of the plaque. The mean prescription dose was 17.62 Gy (range 12.5–24) delivered over 34 hours (range 18–65). Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) type standardised visual acuity determinations, ophthalmic examinations, and angiography were performed before and after treatment. Clinical evaluations were performed in a non-randomised and unmasked fashion.

Results: At 33.3 months (range 3–4), 17 of 31 (55%) eyes had lost 3 or more lines of vision on the ETDRS chart, five (16%) had improved 3 or more lines, and the remaining nine (29%) were within 2 lines of their pretreatment visual acuity measurement. Overall, 45% of patients were within or improved more than 2 lines of their initial visual acuity. Five eyes developed macular scars, eight developed subsequent neovascularisation or haemorrhage, and three progressed through therapy. Two patients were lost to follow up. The most common finding of patients followed for 6 or more months (n = 18 of 29 (62%)) was regression or stabilisation of the exudative process. No radiation retinopathy, optic neuropathy, or cataracts could be attributed to irradiation.

Conclusion: Ophthalmic plaque radiation can be used to treat exudative macular degeneration. At the dose and dose rates employed, most patients experienced decreased exudation or stabilisation of their maculas. No sight limiting radiation complications were noted during 7 year follow up. Owing to the variable natural course of this disease, a prospective randomised clinical trial should be performed to evaluate the efficacy of plaque radiation therapy for exudative macular degeneration.

Keywords: radiation, macular degeneration, brachytherapy, neovascularisation, palladium-103


Macular degeneration is a leading cause of blindness in the western world. The “dry” form of macular degeneration is most common and characterised by slowly progressive atrophy of macula and mild to moderate loss of central vision. In contrast, 10% of patients develop the “wet” form called neovascular or exudative macular degeneration.1–6

Exudative macular degeneration is associated with subretinal neovascularisation (SRN), exudation of lipids, serum, blood, and secondary inflammation. This process typically results in scarification of the macula and severe irreversible loss of central vision. Though most commonly age related, exudative macular degeneration can also be associated with ocular histoplasmosis and high myopia.1–6

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) and laser photocoagulation have been proved (by prospective randomised clinical trials) to be effective treatments for eligible patients with exudative macular degeneration.7–14 Unfortunately, most eyes with neovascular ARMD have either occult membranes or haemorrhagic leakage, thereby making them ineligible for laser based treatments. Like photocoagulation, the success of each laser activated PDT session is dependent upon visualisation of the subretinal neovascularisation.7–15 In addition, SRN lesions closed by PDT commonly reopen within 3 months and must be re-treated several times.12–15

In a meta-analysis of phase I clinical trials, Chakravarthy suggested that low dose external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) exhibited an inhibitory effect on exudative macular degeneration, but higher doses were more effective in the prevention of severe loss of vision (>6 lines on the vision chart).16 Despite these findings, several multicentre prospective randomised clinical trials (typically utilising 10–24 Gy EBRT delivered in 2–4 Gy daily fractions) have demonstrated conflicting results.17–22 In a relatively small prospective randomised trial, Bergink et al found that relatively high dose EBRT was effective in limiting vision loss to less than 6 lines on the visual acuity chart.17

In our opinion, the most striking angiographic evidence of closure of neovascular membranes has been presented by researchers using 8 or 12 Gy of charged particle irradiation (in one 5 minute fraction) and by Jaakola et al using a hand held strontium-90 (90Sr) brachytherapy applicator.23,24 It is important to note that both groups employed high dose rates, the effect of which is equivalent to a larger dose.23,24

Compared to EBRT, brachytherapy techniques can deliver a relatively high dose to the involved macula with less irradiation of most normal ocular structures outside the targeted zone.23,25–31 In part because of dose gradient effects, ophthalmic plaque radiotherapy also allows for more focused irradiation to the affected choroid. The use of brachytherapy also avoids an anterior segment entry dose, a mobile target volume, and irradiation of the fellow eye, sinuses, and/or brain.26 Published reports on brachytherapy for exudative macular degeneration include our use of palladium-103 (103Pd), Jaakola and Freire’s strontium-90 (90Sr) applicators, and Berta’s ruthenium-106 (106Ru).23,26,29–31 Immonen et al suggested that 90Sr treated eyes lost less vision than controls at the 2001 meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.32 In all the aforementioned studies, no complications that might preclude this approach to treatment of exudative macular irradiation have been noted.

In this study, 103Pd ophthalmic plaque radiation therapy was used to treat classic, occult, and recurrent exudative macular degeneration. In all, 31 treated eyes have been followed for up to 7 years. Here, we present our methods and clinical findings.

METHODS

Radiation typically induces acute vasculitis and oedema followed by slowly progressive vascular closure (which may take years to develop).33–37 These effects of radiation are both dose and dose rate dependent.38

Irradiation of a macula containing classic or occult subretinal neovascularisation can directly affect angiogenesis by destroying neovascular endothelial cells and cytokine producing macrophages, or alter the regulatory genes which produce endothelial growth regulating cytokines.39

Widely employed to prevent scar formation, radiation has been used to inhibit the cutaneous keloid and more recently proved to prevent coronary artery stenosis.40 Similarly, Hart et al have suggested that radiotherapy inhibited disciform scar formation associated with end stage exudative macular degeneration.41

Patient selection

To date, 30 patients (31 eyes) with exudative macular degeneration were referred because their disease was considered to be untreatable or they had refused alternative therapy. All lesions were required to have some evidence of subretinal neovascularisation (SRN) demonstrable on fundus photography and fluorescein angiography involving the foveal avascular zone. Such evidence included SRN, blood, exudate, as well as retinal pigment epithelial and neurosensory retinal detachments.

All patients were found to have classic, occult, or recurrent subfoveal exudation secondary to age related macular degeneration (AMD) and had noted recent visual loss or metamorphopsia. All patients had pre treatment visual acuities better than or equal to 20/400, and a minimum post-treatment follow up of 3 months (Table 1).

Table 1.

Patient data and methods

No Macular degeneration type Eye Point Rx Optic nerve distance 103Pd dose (cGy) Treatment duration (hours)
1 Recurrent classic RE 1.9 1.5 1500 45
2 Occult RE 1.2 2 1500 24
3 Occult RE 1.4 1.8 1500 39
4 Recurrent classic RE 1.7 2 1500 24
5 Occult LE 1.9 2 1500 24
6 Classic LE 1.9 2.5 1250 24
7 Occult RE 1.4 3.5 1500 26
8 Occult RE 1.4 1.8 1250 23
9 Occult RE 2 1.8 1800 48
10 Recurrent classic LE 1.4 1 1400 24
11 Occult LE 1.9 1.2 1800 46
12 Occult, classic LE 1.4 0 1500/1500* 24/48*
13 Occult LE 2.4 1 1500 25
14 Occult RE 1.9 2 2362 18
15 Occult RE 2 2 1800 33
16 Recurrent occult LE 2 2.5 1800 26
17 Occult LE 1.4 1.8 1800 43
18 Classic LE 2 1.5 1500 65
19 Occult LE 2 1 1800 48
20 Occult RE 2 2.5 2400 34
21 Recurrent classic LE 2 2 1800 42
22 Occult LE 1.4 1.8 1800 25
23 Occult LE 1.9 1.2 1500 24
24 Recurrent classic RE 2 1 2394 25
25 Classic RE 1.9 1.2 1500 24
26 Classic LE 2 1.5 2400 24
27 Recurrent classic RE 1.7 1.8 1800 46
28 Occult RE 1.7 2 1500 37
29 Classic LE 2 1.8 1800 24
30 Occult LE 2 2.1 2166 24
31 Classic LE 2 1.5 1500 40
Mean 2 2 1762 34

Clinical evaluations

Patients underwent complete ophthalmic eye examinations at each visit. All visual acuity determinations involved protocol refractions by Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) certified personnel, in approved COMS rooms, utilising standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy (ETDRS) charts. After refraction, pupillary, ocular motor, and slit lamp examinations were performed. Goldmann tonometry was used to measure intraocular pressure. Direct, indirect, and contact lens ophthalmoscopy techniques were used as required. The presence of subretinal neovascular membranes and components was determined by ophthalmoscopy, fundus photography, angiography, and ultrasonography.

Consent

Institutional review board approvals for a phase I clinical trial for evidence of effects of treatment (for example, toxicity, angiographic appearance, visual acuity) were obtained from the participating institutions. Informed consent involved a detailed discussion of current knowledge of radiotherapy for macular degeneration, our comparative dosimetry studies, and the available alternative therapies (for example, photocoagulation, porphyrin laser, drug trials, and submacular surgery as applicable). Based on this information, patients were requested to choose either external beam or plaque radiotherapy. No guarantees were made with respect to visual outcome and incidence of complications.

Radiation dosimetry

We chose to use 103Pd versus 125I seeds because of our experience with this radionuclide for the treatment of intraocular tumours and comparative dosimetry.42–48 Similarly, because of the lower photon energy of 103Pd (21 versus 28 keV), the use of 103Pd offered a slightly higher dose to the targeted volume with less irradiation of most normal ocular structures.43

The prescription point was calculated along the central axis of the plaque. Distances were calculated from the inner scleral surface (Table 1). As has been done in the COMS study, the sclera beneath the plaque was assumed to be 1 mm in thickness.

Plaques were composed of 103Pd seeds (Model 200, Theragenics Co, Buford, GA, USA) affixed into 10 or 12 mm standard gold eye plaques (Trachsel Dental Studio Inc, Rochester, MI, USA) with a layer of acrylic fixative. Dosimetric calculations were performed such that the seeds were calculated as point sources without correction for anisotropy (the specific dose rate constant corresponded to that perpendicular to the seeds long axis). The attenuation of the acrylic material was water equivalent. No attenuation was attributed to the 0.5 mm thick gold sidewalls of the plaque. The radial dose function for 103Pd in water was obtained from published data.49–51

The inferior oblique muscle partially inserts into the sclera beneath the macular retina and presents an obstruction to allowing the plaque to lie flat on the sclera. It would be reasonable to assume that one edge of the plaque was slightly tilted during radiotherapy. This effect of plaque tilt on dose distribution is unknown and typically discounted during plaque irradiation of macular uveal melanomas. It was similarly discounted during this series.

Plaque brachytherapy

Our surgical technique has been described.30 In sum, intraoperative indirect ophthalmoscopy was used to confirm the condition of the treatment site. Then, a transconjunctival approach was used to expose the lateral rectus muscle. With the muscle disinserted, the eye could be rotated into adduction and the inferior oblique muscle visualised. The radioactive plaque was placed beneath the macula such that the posterior edge of the plaque met palpable resistance at the optic nerve.

Typically four 5-0 Vicryl episcleral sutures were placed (through the suture eyelets) to secure the plaque beneath the macula. Then, indirect ophthalmoscopy with scleral indentation was used to confirm the position of the plaque in relation to the macular target zone. The lateral rectus muscle was reattached, the conjunctiva closed, and a lead shield taped over the eye. Plaque removal was performed under local anaesthesia and a similar technique was used. Typically, the episcleral fixation sutures could be transected without disturbing the rectus muscle.

Brachytherapy was delivered in a single continuous session. Patient 12 was treated twice because of recurrent disease. With the plaque in place, radiation travelled through the sclera, choroid (area of neovascularisation), and retina. In this series, ophthalmic plaque brachytherapy was delivered to a mean 2 mm from the inner sclera (range 1.2–2.4) prescription point calculated along the central axis of the plaque. The mean prescription dose of 17.62 Gy (range 12.5–24) was delivered over 34 hours (range 18–65) (Table 1). We currently prescribe to a prescription point 2 mm from the inner sclera along the central axis of the plaque, and to a minimum dose of 24 Gy.

Follow up

Visual function was evaluated by means of standard ETDRS refractions by an unmasked examiner. Lesion growth and recurrence were evaluated by ophthalmoscopy and photography with angiography. Clinical evaluations were used to note any evidence of radiation side effects: eyelid erythema, lash loss, conjunctival injection, dry eye, corneal epitheliopathy, rubeosis iridis, cataract formation, vitreous haemorrhage, radiation retinopathy, and radiation optic neuropathy. After the acute postoperative period, ophthalmic examinations with angiography were performed at 3–6 month intervals (Table 2). Follow up examinations included standardised refraction, pupillary function, ocular motor function, slit lamp examination, Goldmann tonometry, ophthalmoscopy, fundus photography, and ophthalmic angiography.

Table 2.

Results after 103Pd plaque for subfoveal neovascularisation

Eye number Vision (20/x) Follow up (months) Initial vision Last ETDRS vision Lines of vision Last reported vision Ophthalmic status
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84
1 400 400 400 400 400 400 320 320 250 250 250 400 400 NA NA NA CF 400 CF >−6 CF Regressed to dry AMD
2 63 40 32 32 32 32 NA 32 32 32 NA 32 40 40 32 32 63 32 3 32 Stabilised PED
3 40 63 63 40 63 50 40 40 40 63 NA 50 50 NA 200 NA 100 100 100 40 200 >−6 100 Eccentric recurrence at 82 months
4 250 200 200 400 320 320 320 100 100 400 200 80 80 63 63 250 63 6 63 Regressed to dry AMD
5 63 63 63 50 50 63 NA 80 63 40 40 50 NA NA 40 63 40 2 40 Regressed to dry AMD+
6 400 200 125 100 100 100 160 NA 100 125 200 250 250 640 NA NA CF CF CF 400 CF >−6 CF Improved but not dry
7 32 20 16 20 NA 25 25 32 32 32 32 32 63 400 NA CF 32 400 >−6 CF Regressed to dry AMD
8 40 25 160 250 250 NA 200 NA 200 400 400 400 CF NA CF CF CF CF 40 CF >−6 CF Regressed to disciform scar
9 40 40 NA 63 80 500 NA NA NA CF NA 400 400 40 400 >−6 400 Regressed to disciform scar
10 80 100 NA NA NA NA NA 400 160 CF 160 320 400 200 200 200 320 80 320 −6 320 Regressed to dry AMD
11 100 100 NA NA 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA HM HM 100 HM >−6 HM Vitreous haemorrhage at 24 months
12 160 80 63 80* 250* 200* 200* 250* 250* 250* 500* 400* 400* 400* NA LP* 160 500 >−6 LP SRN, re-irradiated at 9 months*
13 200 100 100 100 NA 63 NA 100 500 200 HM CF NA CF CF CF 125 HM >−6 CF Vitreous haemorrhage at 36 months
14 32 25 20 25 25 20 20 20 20 20 25 32 25 1 25 Regressed to dry AMD
15 50 100 63 100 125 160 200 200 200 250 320 400 CF 50 320 >−6 CF TTT given at 36 months
16 32 25 20 20 20 40 20 25 25 40 50 200 32 40 −1 200 PDT given at 30 months
17 50 32 32 20 25 50 25 NA 25 32 50 32 2 32 No progression
18 63 80 125 NA NA NA 250 250 250 500 63 500 >−6 500 Regressed to disciform scar
19 40 40 40 32 40 NA 50 50 160 320 CF 40 160 −6 CF PDT given at 24 months
20 125 100 125 125 200 320 400 200 200 CF 125 200 −2 CF PDT given at 24 months
21 100 100 100 100 125 125 NA 100 125 100 125 −1 125 No progression, deceased
22 50 63 50 63 100 100 125 250 320 320 NA CF 50 250 >−6 CF Regressed to disciform scar, deceased
23 32 63 63 100 100 160 200 125 32 125 −6 125 Progressed
24 100 100 100 125 125 125 NA 125 100 125 −1 125 Regressed to dry AMD
25 160 250 200 200 NA NA 200 200 160 200 −1 200 Improved but not dry, deceased
26 32 63 80 160 32 160 >−6 160 Progressed
27 50 100 160 400 NA NA NA NA HM NA HM HM HM CF 50 400 >−6 CF Regressed to disciform scar
28 63 50 32 63 32 3 32 Regressed to dry AMD
29 200 200 320 200 320 −2 320 Progressed, deceased
30 63 100 63 100 −2 100 Lost to follow up
31 125 25 125 25 >+6 25 Lost to follow up
Mean follow up (months) 33.3

CF  =  counting fingers, LP  =  light perception, HM  =  hand movements, RR  =  radiation retinopathy; AMD  =  age related macular degeneration, PDT  =  photodynamic therapy, TTT  =  transpupillary thermotherapy.

RESULTS

According to Macular Photocoagulation Study criteria, the macular lesions were initially diagnosed as classic (n = 6), occult (n = 17), or recurrent (n = 8) subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (Table 1). Classic subretinal neovascular (SRN) lesions were characterised by well demarcated areas of hyperfluorescence discerned on the early phases of a fluorescein angiogram that progressed into the late phases. Occult lesions were defined as those demonstrating diffuse leakage of unknown origin with retinal pigment epithelial detachment, haemorrhage, and/or exudates. Recurrent lesions were defined as those that developed evidence of classic or occult leakage with any history of previous macular laser treatment.

According to Treatment of Age related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Study Group criteria the macular lesions were initially diagnosed as having completely classic exudative macular degeneration (n = 6), mostly (⩾50%) classic (n = 8), and less than 50% classic (n = 3). Fourteen maculas were purely occult. This includes both the recurrent and untreated lesions.12

From April 1994 to September 1999, we treated 31 eyes in 30 patients. These 31 irradiated lesions were followed in our centre for a mean 33.3 months (range 3–84). Additional follow up was obtained by contacting the patients and their physicians (Table 2). Ophthalmic status was determined by chart review except for the two patients who were lost to follow up. The most common finding (n = 18 of 26 (69%)) was regression or stabilisation of the exudative process. These maculas were either described as “regressed to dry macular degeneration,” “stabilised PED,” “improved by not dry,” “regressed to disciform scar,” “regressed to subretinal fibrosis,” or “no progression.” Five of these eyes developed a disciform macular scar.

Other events occurred after treatment

Six maculas (21%) initially were stable to improved but required subsequent treatment 9–36 months after radiotherapy (Table 2). Three lesions (10%) clearly progressed through treatment, and two eyes (7%) experienced vitreous haemorrhages 24 and 36 months after radiation (Table 2).

Analysis of our visual acuity results was complicated by events that occurred after treatment. For example, patient 6 initially improved after treatment, then suffered a recurrence of his disease, was re-irradiated, then improved but not to stabilisation of his vision. By reviewing the vision data in Table 2, the reader will note that any individual patient’s vision could vary through the duration of follow up. Any one patient could improve, worsen, stabilise, or experience a combination of these results (Table 2).

Our vision results represent the last best corrected visual acuity performed at our centre compared to the patient’s pretreatment visual acuity. In this analysis and at their last protocol visit, 17 (55%) eyes had lost 3 or more lines of vision on the ETDRS chart, five (16%) had improved 3 or more lines, and the remaining nine (29%) were within 2 lines of their pretreatment visual acuity measurement. Overall, 14 patients (45%) were within or improved more than 2 lines of their initial visual acuity.

In order to evaluate vision at certain time intervals, we provide the following additional analysis: 88% of patients examined at their 6 month visit (n = 26) were within or improved 3 lines from their baseline vision, 85% at 12 months (n = 20), 65% at 18 months (n = 17), 74% at 24 months (n = 19), 73% at 36 months (n = 11), and 75% at 48 months (n = 8). Severe loss of vision is often defined as a decrease of 6 or more lines of vision. In this study 4% of patients had lost 6 lines or more from their baseline vision at their 6 month visit (n = 26), 5% at 12 months (n = 20), 24% at 18 months (n = 17), 21% at 24 months (n = 19), 18% at 36 months (n = 11), and 25% at 48 months (n = 8). This analysis is limited to those patients (n) who came to the study centre at these reported time intervals.

Other findings have included one (previously strabismic) patient who noted postoperative diplopia that resolved after 3 months follow up. Another patient (No 5) developed a macular hole 6 months after treatment, which was successfully repaired. Evidence of resolution of haemorrhage, exudates, and subretinal fluid suggestive of a therapeutic effect has been noted after plaque radiotherapy. To date, no radiation retinopathy, optic neuropathy, or cataracts have been noted.

DISCUSSION

In review of our results it is important to note that all of our patients were symptomatic of vision loss or metamorphopsia before treatment and that clinical evaluations suggested that only three of 31 (10%) progressed despite treatment. Two additional patients were lost to follow up after 3 months. It is striking that 18 of 26 (69%) treated maculas were described as stabilising or evolving from exudative to dry macular degeneration or scarification (Table 2). This finding not only suggests that radiation affected the exudative process, but warns us that resolution of exudation (in itself) will not erase the damage created by this process or that due to subsequent scarring. In addition, seven eyes (23%) suffered recurrent subretinal neovascularisation or haemorrhages over the years after treatment. Post-treatment vision loss occurred for a variety of factors.

We found that 45% of eyes were within or improved more than 2 lines (compared to their pretreatment visual acuities). Though remarkable, this phase I study does not prove efficacy. The natural course of exudative macular degeneration is known to be variable. For example, the classic and recurrent forms typically result in a rapid loss of vision, while the occult types usually progress slowly. This is why prospective randomised clinical trials are typically employed for proof of efficacy. In this study, our small numbers, lack of a control group, and the possibility of susceptibility bias prevent such a proof.

This study has shown that up to 24 Gy plaque brachytherapy resulted in no complications that might preclude its use for age related macular degeneration associated with subretinal neovascularisation. Chakravarthy and Bergink’s studies have suggested that a higher dose may be required to control exudative macular degeneration. Clearly, brachytherapy offers a method to increase the dose to the affected macula with relative sparing of normal ocular, sinus, and intracranial structures.26,30,52–58 Implant radiation therapy is an investigational treatment that should be subjected to a prospective randomised efficacy trial.

Supplementary Material

[Correct Author Email]

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the clinicians who participated in the care of these patients: Drs Edward Stroh, David Sherr, Eric Shakin, Richard Riley, Andrea Peyser, Tracy Ng, Dean Mitchell, Jeffrey Lipkowitz, Andrew Lipka, Marc Imundo, Darma Ie, Stuart Green, Barry Golub, Elenore Faye, James Collins Jr, Ken Carnevale, Kim Chin, Todd Bragin, Jay Bosworth, and Ron Balkin.

Dr Finger is a scientific consultant fro the Theragenics Corporation, Buford, Georgia, USA and holds patent #6443881.

Supported by The EyeCare Foundation, Inc (New York City), Fight for Sight Research Division of Prevent Blindness America (Schaumburg, Illinois), and Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc (New York City).

REFERENCES

  • 1.Bressler SB, Bressler NM, Fine SL, et al. Natural course of choroidal neovascular membranes within the foveal avascular zone in senile macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol 1982;93:157–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Fine SL. Age-related macular degeneration. Surv Ophthalmol 1988;32:375–413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bressler NM, Frost LA, Bressler SB, et al. Natural course of poorly defined choroidal neovascularization associated with macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 1988;106:1537–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Guyer DR, Fine SL, Maguire MG, et al. Subfoveal choroidal neovascular membranes in age-related macular degeneration. Visual prognosis in eyes with relatively good initial visual acuity. Arch Ophthalmol 1986;104:702–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Klein BE, Klein R. Cataracts and macular degeneration in older Americans. Arch Ophthalmol 1982;100:571–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Liebowitz HM, Krueger DE, Maunder LR, et al. The Framingham Eye Study Monograph; an ophthalmological and epidemiological study of cataract, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and visual acuity in a general population of 2631 adults, 1973–1975. Surv Ophthalmol 1980;24(Suppl):335–610. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Laser photocoagulation of subfoveal recurrent neovascular lesions in age-related macular degeneration: results of a randomized clinical trial. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:1232–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Subfoveal neovascular lesions in age-related macular degeneration: guidelines for evaluation and treatment in the Macular Photocoagulation Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:1242–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Visual outcome after laser photocoagulation for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. The influence of initial lesion size and initial visual acuity. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:480–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Persistent and recurrent neovascularization after laser photocoagulation for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization of age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:489–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Laser photocoagulation of subfoveal neovascular lesions in age-related macular degeneration: results of a randomized clinical trial. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:1220–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.TAP Study Group. Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin: one-year results of 2 randomized clinical trials–TAP report. Treatment of age-related macular degeneration with photodynamic therapy (TAP) Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:1329–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bressler NM, Treatment of Age-related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Study Group. Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin: two-year results of 2 randomized clinical trials-tap report 2. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:198–207. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yannuzzi LA. A new standard of care for laser photocoagulation of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Data revisited. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:462–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy for fellow eyes with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2001;108:2051–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chakravarthy U. External beam radiotherapy in exudative age-related macular degeneration: a pooled analysis of phase-I data. Br J Radiol 2000;73:305–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bergink GJ, Hoyng CB, Vandermaazen RW M, et al. A randomized controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of radiation therapy in the control of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration—radiation versus observation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1998;236:321–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chakravarthy U, Houston RF, Archer DB. Treatment of age-related subfoveal neovascular membranes by teletherapy: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol 1993;77:265–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Char DH, Irvine AI, Posner MD, et al. Randomized trial of radiation for age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol 1999;127:574–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Holz FG, Engenhart-Cabillic R, Unnebrink K, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-masked trial on radiation therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (RAD study). Ophthalmology 1999;106:2239–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Marcus DM, Sheils W, Johnson MH, et al. External beam irradiation of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization complicating age-related macular degeneration: one-year results of a prospective, double-masked, randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:171–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Valmaggia C, Reis G, Ballinari P. Radiotherapy for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;133:521–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jaakola A, Heikkonen J, Tomilla P, et al. Strontium plaque irradiation of subfoveal neovascular membranes in age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1998;236:24–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yonemoto LT, Slater JD, Friedrichsen EJ, et al. Phase I/II study of proton beam irradiation for the treatment of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: Treatment techniques and preliminary results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;36:867–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jaakola A, Heikkonen J, Tarkkanen A, et al. Visual function after strontium-90 plaque irradiation in patients with age-related subfoveal choriodal neovascularization. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998;76:1–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Finger PT, Berson A, Sherr DA, et al. Radiation therapy for subretinal neovascularization. Ophthalmology 1996;103:878–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Berson AM, Finger PT, Sherr DL, et al. Radiation therapy for age-related macular degeneration: preliminary results of a potentially new treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;36:861–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Berson A, Finger PT, Chakravarthy U. Radiation therapy for age-related macular degeneration. Sem Radiat Oncol 1999;9:155–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Finger PT, Immonen I, Freire J, et al. Brachytherapy for macular degeneration associated with subretinal neovascularization. In: Alberti WE, Richard G, Sagerman RH, eds. Age-related macular degeneration: current treatment and concepts. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2000:167–74.
  • 30.Finger PT, Berson A, Ng T, et al. Ophthalmic plaque radiation therapy for age-related macular degeneration associated with subretinal neovascularization. Am J Ophthalmol 1999;127:170–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Berta A, Vezendi L, Vamosi P. Irradiation of macular subretinal neovascularization using Ruthenium applicators. Szemeset (Hung J Ophthalmol) 1995;132:67–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Immonen IJ, Jaakaola A, Tommila D, et al. Strontium plaque radiotherapy for exudative age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:S127. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Baker DG, Krochak RJ. The response of the microvascular system to radiation: a review. Cancer 1989;7:287–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chakravarthy U, Gardiner TA, Archer DB, et al. A light microscopic and autoradiographic study of non-irradiated and irradiated ocular wounds. Curr Eye Res 1989;8:337–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chakravarthy U, Biggart JH, Gardiner TA, et al. Focal irradiation of perforating eye injuries. Curr Eye Res 1989;8:1241–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Maison JR. The influence of radiation on blood vessels and microcirculation: III Ultrastructure of the vessel wall. Curr Top Radiat Res 1974;10:29–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Langley RE, Bump EA, Quartuccio SG, et al. Radiation-induced apoptosis in microvascular endothelial cells. Br J Cancer 1997;75:666–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Barendsen GW. Dose fractionation, dose rate and the iso-effect relationships for normal tissue responses. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1982;8:1981–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Finger PT, Chakravarthy U. External beam radiation therapy is effective in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:1507–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Teirstein PS, Massullo V, Jani S, et al. Catheter-based radiotherapy to inhibit restenosis after coronary stenting. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1697–703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hart PM, Archer DP, Chakravarthy V. Asymmetry of disciform scarring disease when one eye is treated with radiotherapy. Br J Ophthalmol 1995;79:562–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Finger PT. Radiation therapy for choroidal melanoma. Surv Ophthalmol 1997;42:215–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Chiu-Tsao S- T, Anderson LL. Thermoluminescent dosimetry for palladium-103 seeds (model 200) in solid water phantom. Med Phys 1991;18:449–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.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]
  • 45.Finger PT, Berson A, Szechter A. Palladium-103 (103Pd) plaque radiotherapy for choroidal melanoma: results of a 7-year study. Ophthalmology 1999;106:606–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.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]
  • 47.Finger PT. Plaque radiation therapy for malignant melanoma of the iris and ciliary body. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;132:328–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Meigooni AS, Sabnis S, Nath R. Dosimetry of palladium-103 brachytherapy sources for permanent implants. Endocuriether Hypertherm Oncol 1990;6:107–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Beyer D, Nath R, Butler W, et al. American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for clinical implementation of NIST-1999 standards for (103) palladium brachytherapy. The clinical research committee of the American Brachytherapy Society. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:273–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Monroe JI, Williamson JF. Monte Carlo-aided dosimetry of the theragenics TheraSeed model 200 103Pd interstitial brachytherapy seed. Med Phys 2002;29:609–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Williamson JF, Coursey BM, DeWerd LA, et al. Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists on 103Pd interstitial source calibration and dosimetry: implications for dose specification and prescription. Med Phys 2000;27:634–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bergink GJ, Deutman AF, van den Broek JF, et al. Radiation therapy for subfoveal choroidal neovascular membranes in age-related macular degeneration. A pilot study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1994;232:591–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Brady LW, Freire JE, Longton WA, et al. Radiation therapy for macular degeneration: technical considerations and preliminary results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;39:945–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gibbs FA Jr, Leavitt DD. A device permitting precision X-irradiation of the macula with conventional medical linear accelerator. Front Radiat Ther Oncol 2001;35:94–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hart PM, Chakravarthy V, MacKenzie G, et al. Teletherapy for subfoveal CNVM of ARMD: results of follow-up in a non-randomized study. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:1046–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kobayashi H, Kobayashi K. Age-related macular degeneration: long-term results of radiotherapy for subfoveal neovascular membranes. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:617–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mandai M, Takahashi M, Miyamoto H, et al. Long-term outcome after radiation therapy for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization associated with age-related macular degeneration. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2000;44:530–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Mauget-Faysse M, Chiquet C, Milea D, et al. Long term results of radiotherapy for subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation in age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 1999;83:923–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

[Correct Author Email]

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

RESOURCES