Ocular side effects of novel anti-cancer biological therapies.

To examine the ocular side effects of selected biological anti-cancer therapies and the ocular and systemic prognosis of patients receiving them. We retrospectively reviewed all medical records of patients who received biological anti-cancer treatment from 1/2012 to 12/2017 and who were treated at our ocular oncology service. The following data was retrieved: primary malignancy, metastasis, type of biological therapy, ocular side effects, ophthalmic treatment, non-ocular side effects, and ocular and systemic disease prognoses. Twenty-two patients received biological therapies and reported ocular side effects. Eighteen patients (81.8%) had bilateral ocular side effects, including uveitis (40.9%), dry eye (22.7%), and central serous retinopathy (22.7%). One patient (4.5%) had central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO), and one patient (4.5%) had branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). At the end of follow-up, 6 patients (27.27%) had resolution of the ocular disease, 13 patients (59.09%) had stable ocular disease, and 3 patients (13.64%) had progression of the ocular disease. Visual acuity improved significantly at the end of follow-up compared to initial values. Eighteen patients (81.8%) were alive at study closure. Biological therapies can cause a wide range of ocular side effects ranging from dry eye symptoms to severe pathologies that may cause ocular morbidity and vision loss, such as uveitis, CRAO and BRVO. All patients receiving biological treatments should be screened by ophthalmologists before treatment, re-screened every 4-6 months during treatment, and again at the end of treatment. Patients on biological treatment who have ocular complaints should be urgently referred to ocular consultation for early identification and early intervention.

Red white and blue - bright light effects in a diurnal rodent model for seasonal affective disorder.

Despite the common use of bright light exposure for treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD), the underlying biology of the therapeutic effect is not clear. Moreover, there is a debate regarding the most efficacious wavelength of light for treatment. Whereas according to the traditional approach full-spectrum light is used, recent studies suggest that the critical wavelengths are within the range of blue light (460 and 484 nm). Our previous work shows that when diurnal rodents are maintained under short photoperiod they develop depression- and anxiety-like behavioral phenotype that is ameliorated by treatment with wide-spectrum bright light exposure (2500 lux at the cage, 5000 K). Our current study compares the effect of bright wide-spectrum (3,000 lux, wavelength 420- 780 nm, 5487 K), blue (1,300 lux, wavelength 420-530 nm) and red light (1,300 lux, wavelength range 600-780 nm) exposure in the fat sand rat (Psammomys Obesus) model of SAD. We report results of experiments with six groups of sand rats that were kept under various photoperiods and light treatments, and subjected to behavioral tests related to emotions: forced swim test, elevated plus maze and social interactions. Exposure to either intense wide-spectrum white light or to blue light equally ameliorated depression-like behavior whereas red light had no effect. Bright wide-spectrum white light treatment had no effect on animals maintained under neutral photoperiod, meaning that light exposure was only effective in the pathological-like state. The resemblance between the effects of bright white light and blue light suggests that intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) are involved in the underlying biology of SAD and light therapy.