PurposeTo identify the protein profiles in vitreous associated with retinal fibrosis, angiogenesis, and neurite formation in epiretinal fibrovascular membranes (FVMs) in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).MethodsVitreous samples of 5 non-diabetic control patients with vitreous debris and 7 patients with PDR membranes were screened for 507 preselected proteins using the semi-quantitative RayBio® L-series 507 antibody array. From this array, 60 proteins were selected for a custom quantitative antibody array (Raybiotech, Human Quantibody® array), analyzing 7 control patients, 8 PDR patients with FVMs, and 5 PDR patients without FVMs. Additionally, mRNA levels of proteins of interest were measured in 10 PDR membranes and 11 idiopathic membranes and in retinal tissues and cells to identify possible sources of protein production.ResultsOf the 507 proteins screened, 21 were found to be significantly elevated in PDR patients, including neurogenic and angiogenic factors such as neuregulin 1 (NRG1), nerve growth factor receptor (NGFR), placental growth factor (PlGF) and platelet derived growth factor (PDGF). Angiopoietin-2 (Ang2) concentrations were strongly correlated to the degree of fibrosis and the presence of FVMs in patients with PDR. Protein correlation analysis showed PDGF to be extensively co-regulated with other proteins, including thrombospondin-1 and Ang2. mRNA levels of glial-derived and brain/derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF and BDNF) were elevated in PDR membranes. These results were validated in a second study of 52 vitreous samples of 32 PDR patients and 20 control patients.ConclusionsThis exploratory study reveals protein networks that potentially contribute to neurite outgrowth, angiogenesis and fibrosis in the formation of fibrovascular membranes in PDR. We identified a possible role of Ang2 in fibrosis and the formation of FVMs, and of the neurotrophic factors NRG1, PDGF and GDNF in neurite growth that occurs in all FVMs in PDR.

PurposeTo investigate the current practice of enucleation with or without orbital implant for retinoblastoma in countries across the world.MethodsA digital survey identifying operation techniques and material used for orbital implants after enucleation in patients with retinoblastoma.ResultsWe received a response of 58 surgeons in 32 different countries. A primary artificial implant is routinely inserted by 42 (72.4%) surgeons. Ten (17.2%) surgeons leave the socket empty, three (5.2%) decide per case. Other surgeons insert a dermis fat graft as a standard primary implant (n=1), or fill the socket in a standard secondary procedure (n=2; one uses dermis fat grafts and one artificial implants). The choice for porous implants was more frequent than for non-porous implants: 27 (58.7%) and 15 (32.6%), respectively. Both porous and non-porous implant types are used by 4 (8.7%) surgeons. Twenty-five surgeons (54.3%) insert bare implants, 11 (23.9%) use separate wrappings, eight (17.4%) use implants with prefab wrapping and two insert implants with and without wrapping depending on type of implant. Attachment of the muscles to the wrapping or implant (at various locations) is done by 31 (53.4%) surgeons. Eleven (19.0%) use a myoconjunctival technique, nine (15.5%) suture the muscles to each other and seven (12.1%) do not reattach the muscles. Measures to improve volume are implant exchange at an older age (n=4), the use of Restylane SQ (n=1) and osmotic expanders (n=1). Pegging is done by two surgeons.ConclusionNo (worldwide) consensus exists about the use of material and techniques for enucleation for the treatment of retinoblastoma. Considerations for the use of different techniques are discussed.

Both hereditary and nonhereditary retinoblastoma (Rb) are commonly initiated by loss of both copies of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor gene (RB1), while additional genomic changes are required for tumor initiation and progression. Our aim was to determine whether there is genomic heterogeneity between different clinical Rb subtypes. Therefore, 21 Rb tumors from 11 hereditary patients and 10 nonhereditary Rb patients were analyzed using high-resolution single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays and gene losses and gains were validated with Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification. In these tumors only a few focal aberrations were detected. The most frequent was a focal gain on chromosome 2p24.3, the minimal region of gain encompassing the oncogene MYCN. The genes BAZ1A, OTX2, FUT8, and AKT1 were detected in four focal regions on chromosome 14 in one nonhereditary Rb. There was a large difference in number of copy number aberrations between tumors. A subset of nonhereditary Rbs turned out to be the most genomic unstable, while especially very young patients with hereditary Rb display stable genomes. Established Rb copy number aberrations, including gain of chromosome arm 1q and loss of chromosome arm 16q, turned out to be preferentially associated with the nonhereditary Rbs with later age of diagnosis. In contrast, copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity was detected mainly on chromosome 13, where RB1 resides, irrespective of hereditary status or age. Focal amplifications and deletions and copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity besides chromosome 13 appear to be rare events in retinoblastoma.

ABSTRACT.Purpose: To evaluate complications of different types of orbital implants following enucleation for retinoblastoma. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart study of all patients that underwent enucleation as treatment of retinoblastoma between April 1991 and June 2013. Events of implant exposure, extrusion (defined as a complete loss of the implant, or a major exposure that could not be closed) and socket abnormalities were analysed for association with implant type and influence of additional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and/or chemotherapy. Results: A total of 224 enucleations in 216 patients (eight bilateral) were identified. Mean age at surgery was 1.9 (median 1.5) years. Of the 219 included enucleated eyes, 20 were not replaced by a primary implant and 18 were replaced by an Allen implant. Scleral wrapped hydroxyapatite (HA) and acrylic implants (polymethylmethacrylate) were inserted in, respectively, 79 and 102 cases. In the total population, 29 treatment or implant-specific events (13.2%) were registered. Main complications were implant exposure n = 10 (4.6%) and extrusion n = 6 (2.7%). The acrylic/sclera group had less exposures or extrusions (5 of 102, 4.9%) compared to the HA/sclera group (10 of 79, 12.7%), although this difference did not quite reach statistical significance (p = 0.06). Additional treatment (chemotherapy and/or EBRT for the fellow eye) was administered in 78 cases (35.8%). The overall complication rate in the entire study population was significantly higher (16.7% versus 5.7%) in the group exposed to additional therapy (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.30-8.36 p = 0.008). This negative effect of additional therapy was also significant in the combined acrylic/HA group (OR 2.9; 95% CI 0.97-8.46 p = 0.048). Conclusion: Our results suggest a favourable outcome for acrylic implants compared to the HA implant. Additional treatment with chemotherapy and/or EBRT is associated with an increased risk of complications.

No abstract

ImportanceTo improve diagnostics of cancer predisposition syndromes (CPSs) in children with cancer, it is essential to evaluate the effect of CPS gene sequencing among all children with cancer and compare it with genetic testing based on clinical selection. However, a reliable comparison is difficult because recent reports on a phenotype-first approach in large, unselected childhood cancer cohorts are lacking.ObjectiveTo describe a national children’s cancer center’s experience in diagnosing CPSs before introducing routine next-generation sequencing.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at the National Retinoblastoma Treatment Center (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and the Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology (Utrecht, Netherlands) and included Dutch pediatric patients with a new diagnosis of neoplasm between June 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. Follow-up was at least 18 months after neoplasm diagnosis. Data analysis was conducted from July 2021 to February 2022.ExposuresAs part of routine diagnostics, pediatric oncologists and ophthalmologists checked for characteristics of CPSs and selected children for referral to clinical geneticists and genetic testing.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDetected cancer predisposition syndromes.ResultsA total of 824 patients (median [range] age at diagnosis 7.5 [0-18.9] years; 361 girls [44%]) were assessed, including 335 children with a hematological neoplasm (41%) and 489 (59%) with a solid tumor. In 71 of 824 children (8.6%), a CPS was identified, of which most (96%) were identified by a phenotype-driven approach. Down syndrome and neurofibromatosis type 1 were the most common CPSs diagnosed. In 42 of 71 patients (59%), a CPS was identified after these children developed a neoplasm. The specific type of neoplasm was the most frequent indicator for genetic testing, whereas family history played a minor role.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of children with a neoplasm, the prevalence of CPSs identified by a phenotype-driven approach was 8.6%. The diagnostic approach for identifying CPSs is currently shifting toward a genotype-first approach. Future studies are needed to determine the diagnostic value, as well as possible disadvantages of CPS gene sequencing among all children with cancer compared with the phenotype-driven approach.

No abstract

Purpose To illustrate Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) images of active and inactive retinoblastoma (Rb) tumours. Methods Current observational study included patients diagnosed with retinoblastoma and retinoma who were presented at Amsterdam UMC and Jules‐Gonin Eye Hospital, between November 2010 and October 2017. Patients aged between 0 and 4 years were imaged under general anaesthesia with handheld OCT in supine position. Patients older than 4 years were imaged with the conventional OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg Spectralis, Germany). All patients included were divided into two groups: active and inactive tumours (retinoma and regression patterns). Patients’ medical records and OCT images were analysed during meetings via discussions by ophthalmologists and physicists. Results Twelve Dutch and 8 Swiss patients were divided into two groups: 2 patients with active tumour versus 18 patients with inactive tumour. Subsequently, inactive group could be divided in two groups, which consisted of 10 patients with retinoma and 8 patients with different regression pattern types. Of all included patients, 15 were male (75%). Median age at diagnosis was 18.0 months (range 0.19–715.2 months). A total of 12 retinoblastoma (active and inactive) and 8 retinoma foci were investigated by OCT. No distinction could be made between active and inactive tumours using only OCT. Conclusion Optical coherence tomography alone cannot distinguish between active and inactive Rbs. However, handheld OCT adds useful information to the established imaging techniques in the monitoring and follow‐up of retinoblastoma patients. With this study, we provide an overview of OCT images of active and inactive Rbs.