Treatment of Uveal Melanoma With Radioactive Iodine 125 Implant Compared With Proton Beam Radiotherapy

• Authors: James P Bolling, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Roi Dagan, University of Florida, Gainesville; Michael Rutenberg, University of Florida, Gainesville; Maria Mamalui-Hunter, University of Florida, Gainesville; Steven J Buskirk, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Michael G Heckman, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Alexander P Hochwald, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Roelf Slopsema, Emory University
• Journal Title: MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
• Volume: Volume 6, Number 1
• Publisher: Elsevier | 2022-02-01, Pages 27-36
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2021.10.002
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Oncology; Biology, Radiation
• Keywords: proton beam therapy; radioactive iodine 125 implant; uveal melanoma

Abstract

Objective To review the current state of radiation therapy for uveal melanoma and compare particle radiation and brachytherapy. Patients and Methods The medical records of 156 patients treated for uveal melanoma between May 30, 2012, and March 16, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Treatments consisted of either radioactive iodine 125 implant (RAI) or fractionated proton radiation (proton beam therapy [PBT]). Baseline characteristics were compared using a Wilcoxon rank sum test or χ2 test. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression models or logistic regression models. Results The median length of follow-up after treatment was 2.7 years (range, 0.5 to 9.0 years). Patients who underwent treatment with RAI were older (median age, 67 vs 59 years; P<.001) and had a lower tumor classification (American Joint Commission on Cancer; P=.001) compared with those who underwent PBT. There was no significant difference between RAI and PBT in the outcomes of liver metastases, death, enucleation, tearing, vision loss, retinal detachment, tumor thickness, conjunctivitis, optic neuropathy, iris neovascularization, or neovascular glaucoma (all P>.05). Patients who underwent RAI treatment had significantly higher risk of diplopia (P<.001), cataract progression (P<.001), and maculopathy (P=.03) compared with those who received PBT. Patients who underwent RAI were at higher risk of eyelash loss (P=.006) compared with the PBT group. Conclusion Treatment with PBT and RAI has similar efficacy; however, there are differences in the adverse outcomes associated with these 2 modalities.