Visual outcomes of macular melanocytic lesions after early or delayed proton beam therapy.

PURPOSE: During their initial management, some macular melanocytic lesions can be closely monitored to wait for a documented growth before advocating a treatment by irradiation. However, the visual outcomes of this strategy have not yet been assessed. This study compares the visual outcomes of macular melanocytic lesions that underwent delayed proton beam therapy (PBT) after an initial observation to those treated early. METHODS: A total of 162 patients with suspicious melanocytic lesions whose margins were located within 3 mm of the fovea were recruited from two French ocular oncology centers. RESULTS: Overall, 82 patients treated with PBT within 4 months after the initial visit (early PBT group) were compared to 24 patients treated with delayed PBT (delayed PBT group) and 56 patients not treated with PBT (observation group). Visual acuity was not significantly different between baseline and last visit in the observation group (p = 0.325). Between baseline and last visit, the median [IQR] loss in visual acuity was significant in both the early (0.7 [0.2; 1.8], p < 0.001) and the delayed (0.5 [0.2; 1.5], p < 0.001) PBT groups. After irradiation, there was no significant difference between the early and delayed PBT groups for visual loss (p = 0.575), diameter reduction (p = 0.190), and thickness lowering (p = 0.892). In multivariate analysis, history of diabetes mellitus and Bruch's membrane rupture remained significantly associated with greater visual loss (p = 0.036 and p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: For small lesions in which there is no clear diagnosis of malignant melanoma, an initial close monitoring to document tumor growth does not impact visual prognosis, despite the potential complications associated with the untreated tumor. However, the survival should remain the main outcome of the treatment of these lesions.

Dexamethasone Implant under a Proactive Treatment Regimen in Clinical Setting: The ProDEX Study.

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of switching intravitreal dexamethasone implants (DEX-implant) from pro re nata (PRN) treatment regimen to a proactive regimen in patients with macular edema of diverse etiologies. DESIGN: An observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, multicenter, national case series. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one eyes from 68 patients treated between October 2015 and June 2023 were included. METHODS: This study included consecutive eyes treated with DEX-implant who were switched from a PRN regimen to a proactive regimen for diabetic macular edema (DME), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), noninfectious uveitis macular edema (UME; including postsurgical macular edema), and radiation maculopathy (RM). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were change in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) at each visit. RESULTS: According to the etiology, DME represented 49.4% of eyes, UME 24.3%, RVO 21.0%, and RM 6.2%. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of follow-up under the PRN and proactive regimens was 20.6 (13.3) and 14.2 (10.3) months, respectively. Switching from a PRN to a proactive regimen significantly improved mean (SD) BCVA by 3.7 (12.9) ETDRS letters (P = 0.01) with a mean (SD) decrease in CMT of 108.0 (151.4) µm (P < 0.001). The proportion of visits with significant anatomic recurrence (> 50 µm) also decreased from 40.1% to 6.0% after switching to a proactive regimen (P < 0.001). The number of DEX-implant injections significantly increased during the proactive treatment period (P < 0.001), but the change in the number of visits was not significantly different (P = 0.2). The proactive treatment period was not associated with a significant increase in IOP (P = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a proactive regimen in patients already treated with DEX-implant seems to significantly improve BCVA and CMT while maintaining stable IOP. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Preserflo Microshunt Surgery for Ocular Hypertension following Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant Removal: A Case Report.

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is now a well-known condition for which a number of treatments have been shown to be effective. Intraocular corticosteroids are part of this therapeutic arsenal but are sometimes responsible for ocular hypertension. We describe here the case of a 60-year-old man with a history of bilateral DME who received an intravitreal injection of 190 µg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) (ILUVIEN®, Alimera Sciences, Alpharetta, GA, USA) who presented a persistent ocular hypertension in one eye despite FAc removal by pars plana vitrectomy and was successfully managed by Preserflo® microshunt surgery.

Intra-Ocular Pressure Response to Dexamethasone Implant Injections in Patients with a History of Filtering Surgery: The TRABEX Study.

Patients with both macular edemas, of various etiologies such as diabetes and glaucoma, may suffer serious loss of vision if either disease goes untreated. Where no effective alternative therapies are available, dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) injections may be the only choice of treatment, despite the risk of a possible increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) when using steroids. Although many studies have reported on IOP evolution in eyes treated with DEX-I, little is known specifically about eyes with a history of filtering surgery. The aim of this observational series was to evaluate the IOP response following DEX-I injection in eyes presenting conventional filtering surgeries or microinvasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Twenty-five eyes were included in this study. A total of 64% of the eyes did not experience OHT during follow-up. Additional IOP-lowering therapy was needed for 32% of eyes, and 20% of eyes (all showing bleb fibrosis) required further filtering surgery: 50% of eyes in the MIGS group and 10.5% of eyes in the conventional filtering surgery group. A significant positive correlation was found between IOP at baseline and the maximum IOP throughout follow-ups after DEX-I (r = 0.45, p = 0.02). In conclusion, if DEX-I is used when there are no alternative therapies for treating macular edema, IOP in eyes with a history of filtering surgery is generally manageable. Those eyes which previously underwent conventional therapy with effective blebs obtained better IOP control after DEX-I injections and mostly did not require any additional IOP-lowering therapy or surgery.