RESUMO
Background Carboplatin and paclitaxel are two standard chemotherapeutic agents known to cause neurotoxicity. In this study, we aim to evaluate the toxicity of these agents by measuring the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macular thickness in patients with endometrial and ovarian cancers who are receiving them. Methods A one-year prospective cohort study involving 28 patients who were treated intravenously with carboplatin (200-400 mg/m2) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) three-weekly for six cycles was conducted. RNFL and macula thickness were measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT) before the commencement of chemotherapy, after the third cycle, and one month after the sixth cycle. The main outcome measurements were the average RNFL thickness and central subfield thickness of the macula. Results The mean age of the 28 participants was 54.68 years old (standard deviation [SD] 9.03). Eleven had endometrial cancer, while 17 had ovarian cancer. The mean of the average RNFL thickness during baseline pre-chemotherapy was 96.43 µm (SD 11.39). One month after cessation of treatment, the mean RNFL thickness increased to 101.57 µm (SD 13.54). Statistical analysis showed a significant increment in the mean RNFL thickness (p ≤ 0.001), from baseline to after three cycles, and baseline to one month after six cycles of chemotherapy, except the nasal quadrant. The increment of all macular quadrants was statistically significant (p < 0.05) except for central subfield thickness. Conclusion Systemic administration of carboplatin and paclitaxel affected both the peripapillary RNFL and macula thickness. This represents early evidence of subacute subclinical retinal toxicity. OCT can be used as a screening tool to assess peri-chemotherapeutic retinal alterations.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Identifying patients with BRCA mutations is clinically important to inform on the potential response to treatment and for risk management of patients and their relatives. However, traditional referral routes may not meet clinical needs, and therefore, mainstreaming cancer genetics has been shown to be effective in some high-income and high health-literacy settings. To date, no study has reported on the feasibility of mainstreaming in low-income and middle-income settings, where the service considerations and health literacy could detrimentally affect the feasibility of mainstreaming. METHODS: The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer. RESULTS: Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms. CONCLUSION: The MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing.
