4.6 Article

Familial retinoblastoma: fundus screening schedule impact and guideline proposal. A retrospective study

Journal

EYE
Volume 25, Issue 12, Pages 1555-1561

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2011.198

Keywords

retinoblastoma; cancer; familial; hereditary; screening; outcome

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To assess if systematic fundus screening according to an 'intensive' schedule alters ocular outcome and to propose fundus screening schedule guidelines for children related to a retinoblastoma patient. Methods For children with a positive family history of retinoblastoma, we perform fundus exams shortly after birth under general anaesthesia and then at regular intervals according to schedules based on the risk. Familial retinoblastoma cases seen at our institution from January 1995 to December 2004 were retrospectively classified as 'screened' or 'non-screened' (NS) and, among the 'screened' patients, as 'intensively screened' (IS) if screening matched our recommendations or 'non-intensively screened' (S). Groups were compared by Fisher exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables. Results Among the 547 retinoblastoma patients managed at our institution during this period, 59 were familial cases. In all, 20 were in the NS group, 23 in the S group, and 16 in the IS group. The number of children enucleated was, respectively, 13, 2, and 0 (P < 10(-4)); external beam radiation (EBRT) was required for, respectively, 6, 0, and 2 children (P < 0.009). Chemotherapy burden and visual acuity were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion An 'intensive' fundus screening schedule decreased the need for enucleation and EBRT. Therefore, despite the heavy burden of the screening schedule, we recommend physicians and health-care professionals to better inform and refer children with a family history of retinoblastoma for genetic counselling and proper fundus screening in specialized centres. Eye (2011) 25, 1555-1561; doi:10.1038/eye.2011.198; published online 16 September 2011

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available