Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.2
Scopus CiteScore – 3.4
Index Copernicus  – 168.52; MEiN – 140 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Ahead of print

doi: 10.17219/acem/166664

Publication type: meta-analysis

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Cite as:

Yu G, Zhou X, Li J. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of intra-arterial chemotherapy for the management of retinoblastoma patients [published online as ahead of print on July 24, 2023]. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2024. doi:10.17219/acem/166664

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of intra-arterial chemotherapy for the management of retinoblastoma patients

Guoxiao Yu1,A,B,C,D, Xiaoqiang Zhou1,A,B,C,D, Juan Li2,A,D,E,F

1 Department of Ophthalmology, First People’s Hospital of Linping District, Hangzhou, China

2 Department of Radiotherapy, Hangzhou Cancer Hospital, China

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstracts


Background. Intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC) is considered a unique technique for retinoblastoma (Rb) management and has widespread applicability as a first-line or second-line treatment due to the high globe survival rates.

Objectives. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of IAC approach among patients with Rb.

Materials and methods. This study outlined the most recent research on IAC effectiveness in Rb treatment. We carried out a systematic search for published papers examining IAC treatment among patients with Rb using electronic search engines, including Embase, Web of Science (WoS), PubMed, OVID, and Google Scholar, until October 2021.

Results. This meta-analysis included 39 observational studies with 2604 treated eyes and 3112 individuals who were eligible for inclusion. Enucleation rates varied from 0% to 43.7% in the chosen trials, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.52 (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.41–0.66, p < 0.0001). A range of 30–100% was reported for globe salvage across 27 investigations involving 2310 eyes. The estimated OR of globe salvage was 2.41, with 95% CI of 1.6–3.63 and a p-value <0.0001. The combined total effect sizes and the death rate for the proportion of cases with metastatic Rb were as follows: OR = 0.03 (95% CI: 0.03–0.03) and OR = 0.05 (95% CI: 0.04–0.05, p < 0.0001), respectively.

Conclusions. Retrospective trials have shown that intra-arterial-based therapy for Rb is an effective choice. Intra-arterial chemotherapy also reduced enucleation and metastasis incidence rates. The paucity of evidence in the literature necessitates further high-level studies.

Key words: metastases, retinoblastoma, globe salvage


Retinoblastoma (Rb) is an intra-ocular cancer that mainly affects young people throughout the world and carries life-threatening consequences. This type of cancer was identified in about 8000 patients globally.1 A systemic delivery of intravenous chemotherapy (IVC) was the standard care approach that achieved encouraging results in Rb using laser adjunctive therapy and cryotherapy, while advanced Rb cases showed modest outcomes with IVC.

Since the development of intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC), the direct intra-arterial delivery of chemotherapy has become the standard of care for salvage therapy at numerous tertiary ocular facilities globally.2 This method assisted in the treatment of advanced Rb cases that would have otherwise been enucleated.1, 3 Before the emergence of IAC, enucleation was performed in around 80% of advanced Rb cases classified as group D or E, according to the International Classification of Retinoblastoma (ICRB) group.4

Compared to intravenously delivered systemic chemotherapy, IAC has achieved higher levels of chemotherapy in tumor tissue and better outcomes. The systemic chemotherapeutic adverse effects of ototoxicity and neurotoxicity were reduced by IAC treatment.5 Furthermore, IAC can be delivered in 1 day, and the tumor can be controlled with 2 to 3 sessions.

Intra-arterial chemotherapy is beneficial as second-line therapy in refractory Rb that leads to improved globe salvage of eyes that would have otherwise been enucleated. However, patient selection and the procedure’s complications have raised many concerns. Intra-arterial chemotherapy is an invasive therapeutic method necessitating an experienced team with multiple specialties, including a neurosurgeon, an interventional radiologist and a pediatric oncologist. In addition, IAC requires specialized centers and advanced techniques. However, through proper application in professional hands, the advantages of IAC outweigh its drawbacks.6, 7

Although IAC has demonstrated superior efficacy in terms of global salvage rates, the metastasis incidence rate among Rb patients treated with IAC remains unknown. In 2016, Yousef et al. conducted a systematic review of the evidence for IAC use in Rb treatment.8 Since then, several studies have been carried out. However, most patient cohort reports using comparative data were of insufficient quality, and differences in sample sizes led to challenging critical evaluation of problems and outcomes.9


To assess the current research and update the existing evidence on the clinical effectiveness of IAC in patients with Rb, particularly those with advanced disease, we set out to review the studies conducted to date. The information provided by this meta-analysis is expected to help doctors in their clinical work.

Materials and methods

The current investigation was conducted according to the predetermined procedure based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) protocol.

Search strategy

Following the treatment of Rb with IAC, eligible trials assessed a minimum of one of the following outcomes: enucleation rate, metastatic incidence, globe salvage, or mortality. Studies describing the results of combined IAC and intravitreal treatment (IVT) were also included.

We considered research studies published in all languages and conducted in humans. The inclusion was not restricted by study size. Editorials, irrelevant research studies and review articles were all eliminated. The study search procedure is depicted in Table 1. The following criteria were met by the studies included in this meta-analysis: 1) well-designed prospective and retrospective studies; 2) studies that targeted Rb patients; 3) IAC therapy was the interventional procedure; 4) results of IAC therapy, either alone or in conjunction with IVT, were included in the investigation.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) case reports, editorials, review articles, abstracts only, and research with a limited sample size (less than 10 subjects); 2) studies with missing or incomplete data and different outcomes other than the outcomes of interest; 3) studies performed with aims other than examining IAC outcomes in Rb; 4) study articles with therapeutic procedures other than IAC.


As shown in Table 1, we first conducted a search using a combination of MeSH terms and keywords related to IAC and Rb in electronic databases, including Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar, OVID, and the Cochrane Library, up until October 2021. After omitting duplicates, the retrieved papers were compiled into a single EndNote file. We examined the titles and abstracts to rule out the articles that did not discuss how IAC affected patients with Rb, enucleation rates, globe salvage, metastasis rate, or mortality. The collected studies were examined for pertinent information.


The first author’s name, time frame, location, publication year, target patients, research procedure, number of subjects, demographics, and applicable clinical treatment features were all summarized in a predesigned form, as shown in Figure 1. The assessment period was also related to the statistical analysis of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) regarding relationships, information resources, outcome assessment, and quantitative and qualitative review methodologies. Two authors independently evaluated the non-randomized controlled trials for study quality.

Information was gathered independently by 2 authors to determine if a study met the inclusion criteria. In case of a dispute, the corresponding author made the final decision. Data were individually extracted if there was variation in the data obtained from one of the trials. Two authors independently assessed procedural quality to determine the degree of bias in the retrieved studies.

The risk of bias

The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess bias risk and procedural quality (RoB 2; Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK).10 Following data extraction, the authors evaluated the quality of the eligible studies according to the Cochrane Collaboration criteria. The risk of bias was assessed as low, moderate or high. The bias risk was evaluated based on the randomization technique, blinding of the outcome assessment, missing data, and selective reporting. Any inconsistencies or disputes were addressed by re-examining the original publication.

Statistical analysis

The estimated ORs and 95% CIs were calculated. We also calculated the I2 index, which was predicted to be between 0% and 100%. The I2 index values of roughly 0% were evaluated as negligible heterogeneity, while those over 25% were perceived as minimal heterogeneity, with 50% and 75% indicating moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively.11 In order to ascertain the correct model to be used, we analyzed the main discrepancies and similarities between the studies, including the effect size, discrepancies in the population characteristics, number of IAC sessions, follow-up duration, and methods. Based on the discrepancy assessment, all analyses used a random effects model. The stratification of studies per result category was performed for the subgroup analysis. A value of p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance for differences between the assessed outcomes in the analyzed studies. The Egger’s regression test for quantitative bias assessment was performed (bias was present if p ≤ 0.05) and funnel plots were used to qualitatively assess bias. The calculated p-values were two-sided. All measurements and graphs were created using Reviewer Manager (RevMan) software v. 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre Inc., Copenhagen, Denmark).


Characteristics of the included studies

Initial search engine results identified 614 potential articles (Figure 2). Thirty-nine articles3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 published up until 2021 met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria after full-text evaluation and review. A total of 2604 eyes were treated in the included studies. Only 4 studies were prospective, while most were retrospective (n = 35). The number of participants with Rb in the trials ranged from 10 to 500 at the beginning of the study. The chemotherapeutic drugs used included carboplatin, melphalan and topotecan. Indications for IAC were reported in all trials among Rb patients. Table 2 provides a summary of the major characteristics of the included research.

Enucleation rate

Nineteen studies explicitly assessed the enucleation rate with IAC. The rate of enucleation ranged from 0% to 43.7%, with the highest rate (>50%) reported by Hua et al. in 2018.39 The estimated total pooled OR of enucleation rates was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.42–0.65, p < 0.001) with a considerably high level of heterogeneity (I2 = 98%), as shown in Figure 3.

Globe salvage

The globe salvage rate was reported in 27 investigations of 2310 treated eyes and ranged from 30% to 100%. The overall percentage of Rb patients who underwent IAC treatment was 76.4%. With substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 90%), the calculated overall OR for globe salvage was 2.05 (95% CI: 1.62–2.60, p < 0.001), as shown in Figure 4.

Metastasis rate

According to 7 studies, the metastasis rate was 2.4%. The total impact size of the proportion of metastatic disease had an OR = 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02–0.06, p < 0.001). The estimated heterogeneity was 61% (Figure 5).

Mortality rate

Nine studies with a total population of 1896 patients reported the mortality rate. The estimated overall mortality rate was 1.3%. The pooled mortality rate effect size had an OR = 0.05 (95% CI: 0.04–0.05, p < 0.001) with a low level of heterogeneity (I2 = 39%) (Figure 6).

There were no adjustments for age, ethnicity or gender because none of the studies accounted for these factors.

Publication bias

There was no evidence of publication bias as shown by the symmetrical funnel plots (Figure 7), where the vertical line represented the summary of the estimated effect size. Moreover, Egger’s test did not detect significant publication bias, and the estimated p-values for Figure 7 were 0.317, 0.294, 0.527, and 0.461. Despite this, most studies included in this meta-analysis had low procedural quality because of the limited size of the study populations. None of the research studies had a selective bias in reporting or inadequate data on outcomes.


Most cancer patients, including those with Rb, are treated with systemic chemotherapy, which has a high frequency of treatment-related adverse effects.50 Yamane et al. published the first study on targeted intra-arterial ophthalmic chemotherapy for Rb patients in 2004.51 Despite the difficulties with small blood vessel catheterization, IAC has emerged as the first alternative to Rb treatment, with broad applicability around the globe. Before IAC, around 80% of Rb cases eventually required to be enucleated to minimize hematogenous tumor dissemination and central nervous system involvement.52

The current meta-analysis comprised 39 papers that assessed the key outcomes and complications of IAC for subjects with Rb. We conducted this study to provide updated evidence on the utility and effectiveness of the IAC technique by including recent trials that adopted diverse medications for Rb treatment. This study revealed a significantly improved enucleation rate after IAC in Rb patients. The clinical benefits of IAC in globe conservation were reported in several research articles. In the present meta-analysis, the estimated overall globe salvage with IAC was 76.4%, which is in accordance with the rates observed by Yousef et al. in their systematic review of 12 articles.8

According to our findings, the overall metastasis rate was estimated to be 2.4%, which is comparable to the estimations of 2.1% from the pooled analysis of Yousef et al.8 Moreover, Chen et al. showed that patients with advanced Rb had a 2.7% overall metastasis rate with IAC.53 The likelihood of metastatic eye disease is greatly increased by the presence of histopathologic risk factors. In nations with well-developed hospital facilities, this risk significantly decreases to less than 10%.54

Most adverse effects reported after IVC use would effectively disappear with symptomatic treatments. Rational use of IVC is crucial to minimize adverse events. Many systemic and ocular problems have been observed as a result of the high doses of chemotherapy used to treat eyes, despite the potential therapeutic efficacy, and the high rates of globe salvage achieved with IAC. The most frequently reported ocular problems were eyelid edema, retinal ischemia, retinal detachment (in around 25% of patients), vitreous hemorrhages, and retina atrophy. Clinical consequences that are temporary and typically self-limiting include retinal detachment and hemorrhages, though they may have long-term consequences and endanger vision, unlike ischemic attacks. Thus, long-term follow-up is recommended to assess vision. Moreover, IAC-related vascular injuries can be reduced through angiographic analysis and precise micro-catheter placement. Neutropenia and fever were among the commonly observed systemic side effects, with bronchospasm present in about 10% of cases, which required bronchodilators for its management.9, 54

Kaliki et al. classified metastasis as a high risk in patients with a 4% mortality rate and a low risk in Rb patients with 0% mortality.55, 56 Besides, metastasis incidence rate and secondary malignancies among patients with heritable Rb are higher than in non-heritable Rb patients. Sarcoma, leukemia, melanoma, and brain cancers are the most commonly reported secondary malignancies. Recurrent radiotherapy and melphalan use with IAC have been associated with mutations and resulted in secondary malignancies. Regarding IVC, carboplatin and etoposide have been linked with an increased risk of secondary malignancies. However, the total drug dose received also plays an important role and needs to be considered when assessing secondary malignancy risk. Moreover, most of the reported cases of metastasis and secondary malignancies received radiotherapy either previously or concomitant to chemotherapy. Therefore, radiotherapy could be the reason for secondary malignancy rather than the chemotherapy used.


There are some limitations to the current meta-analysis. First, it lacks any high-level randomized controlled trials and is based primarily on retrospective data. Second, few studies assessed disease progression and survival rates following IAC. Third, there was significant heterogeneity seen in the published results; and fourth, there was limited stratification of Rb patients according to disease severity factors such as tumor size, vitreous tumor or sub-retinal fluid seeds, and prior treatment.


In summary, retrospective trials have shown that intra-arterial-based therapy is an effective alternative for treating Rb. This method also reduced enucleation and metastasis rates; however, the paucity of evidence in the literature necessitates further high-level randomized controlled studies.


Table 1. Search strategy for each database


Search strategy


#1 “intra-arterial“ [MeSH Terms] OR ”chemosurgery procedures” [All Fields] OR ”retinoblsatoma” [All Fields]

#2 “enucleation“ [MeSH Terms] OR “globe salvage” [All Fields] OR “metastasis” [All Fields] OR “mortality” [All Fields]

#3 #1 AND #2


#1 ‘intra-arterial chemotherapy’/exp OR ‘chemosurgery procedures’/exp OR ‘retinoblastoma’/exp

#2 ‘enucleation’/exp OR ‘ICBG’/exp OR ‘globe salvage’/exp OR ‘metastasis’/exp OR ‘mortality’/exp

#3 #1 AND #2

Cochrane Library

#1 (intra-arterial chemotherapy):ti,ab;kw OR (chemosurgery procedures):ti,ab;kw OR (retinoblastoma):ti,ab;kw (Word variations have been searched)

#2 (enucleation):ti,ab;kw OR (globe salvage):ti,ab;kw OR (metastasis):ti,ab;kw OR (mortality):ti,ab;kw (Word variations have been searched)

#3 #1 AND #2


#1 “intra-arterial chemotherapy” OR “chemosurgery procedures” [All Fields] OR “retinoblastoma” [All Fields]

#2 “enucleation” OR “globe salvage“ [All Fields] OR “metastasis” [All Fields] OR “mortality” [All Fields]

#3 #1 AND #2

Google Scholar

#1 “intra-arterial chemotherapy” OR “chemosurgery procedures” OR “retinoblastoma”

#2 “enucleation“ OR “globe salvage” OR “metastasis” OR “mortality”

#3 #1 AND #2

MeSH – medical subject headings; ti,ab;kw – terms in either title or abstract or keyword fields; exp – exploded indexing term.
Table 2. The main characteristics of the included studies

Author’s name, publication year

Region, study design

Treated eyes, n

Unilateral eye disease, %

Age [months], median (range)

Sessions, median (range)

Follow-up duration [months], median (range)

Chemotherapeutic agent

Abramson et al. (2010)12

USA, prospective



11 (3–88)

3.2 (1–6)

15 (3–37)

topotecan, melphalan, carboplatin

Gobin (2011)13

USA, retrospective



melphalan, topotecan, carboplatin, methotrexate

Munier et al. (2011)14

Switzerland, retrospective




Peterson et al. (2011)15

USA, retrospective



18 (9–32)

1.4 (1–2)

8.6 (3–12)

melphalan (7.5 mg)

Suzuki et al. (2011)16

Japan, retrospective



3.7 (1–18)

79 (58)


Marr et al. (2012)17

USA, retrospective



18 (0–62)

2.3 (1–4)

14 (1–43)

topotecan, carboplatin, melphalan

Muen et al. (2012)18

UK, prospective



17 (11–150)


9 (3–16)


Thampi et al. (2013)19

USA, retrospective



15 (7–63)


15 (1–29)


Venturi et al. (2013)20

Italy, retrospective




Ghassemi et al. (2014)21

Iran, retrospective



39 (14–120)


17 (3–36)

topotecan + melphalan

Shields et al. (2014)22

USA, retrospective



20 (4–392)

3 (1–6)

melphalan + topotecan + carboplatin

Taich et al. (2014)23

Argentina, retrospective



melphalan and topotecan

Parareda et al. (2014)24

Spain, prospective



21 (7–51)

2.6 (1–5)

29.5 (6–57)

melphalan (3–5 mg)

Akyüz et al. (2015)25

Turkey, retrospective




Ong et al. (2015)26

Taiwan, retrospective



18 (2–50)

3 (1–6)

22 (5–43)

Abramson et al. (2016)27

USA, retrospective



melphalan, topotecan, carboplatin, methotrexate

Chen et al. (2016)28

China, retrospective


2.6 (2–4)

28 (9–65)

melphalan, topotecan, carboplatin

Leal-Leal et al. (2016)29

Mexico, prospective



22.6 (12–36)

14.3 (1.8–28)

melphalan (4 mg), topotecan (1 mg)

Michaels et al. (2016)30

USA, retrospective



29 (5–192)

melphalan or topotecan

Tuncer et al. (2016)31

Turkey, retrospective




29 (6–55)


Chen et al. (2017)32

China, retrospective



20 (4–95)

3.1 (2–5)

9.1 (1–26)

melphalan (0.5 mg/kg), topotecan (1 mg)

Fabian et al. (2017)33

UK, retrospective



11 (0.6–144)

55 (11–156)



Munier et al. (2017)34

Switzerland, retrospective



33.5 ±25.9

melphalan (2.8–7.5 mg)

Reddy et al. (2017)35

UK, retrospective


melphalan, topotecan

Rishi et al. (2017)36

India, retrospective



26 (11–59)

3.8 (3–5)


melphalan, topotecan

Francis et al. (2018)37

USA, retrospective



13.4 (0.1–195)

26.5 (0–119.7)

melphalan, topotecan, carboplatin

Funes et al. (2018)38

Argentina, retrospective


4 (1–14)

48.7 (12–79)


Hua et al. (2018)39

China, retrospective



16 (4–96)

14.2 (3–28)

melphalan, topotecan

Kiratli et al. (2018)40

Turkey, retrospective



4.0 (1–16)

melphalan, topotecan

Rojanaporn et al. (2019)41

Thailand, retrospective



melphalan, topotecan, carboplatin

Yassa et al. (2019)3

Egypt, retrospective


14.2 (6–20)


Liu et al. (2020)42

Malaysia, retrospective



melphalan, topotecan, carboplatin

Batu Oto et al. (2020)43

Turkey, retrospective



Rishi et al. (2020)44

India, retrospective



melphalan, topotecan

González et al. (2021)45

Colombia, retrospective



8.70 (4.53–18.55)

29 (16–59)

melphalan + topotecan

Linde and Mustak (2021)46

South Africa, retrospective



melphalan + topotecan

Oporto et al. (2021)47

Chile, retrospective



melphalan, topotecan

Shields et al. (2021)48

USA, retrospective


melphalan, topotecan, carboplatin

Li et al. (2022)49

China, retrospective



melphalan, topotecan, carboplatin

NA – not applicable.


Fig. 1. Predesigned form for data extraction
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the study search strategy
Fig. 3. Forest plot of the overall estimated effect sizes of enucleation rate
OR – odds ratio; 95% CI – 95% confidence interval; SE – standard error; df – degrees of freedom.
Fig. 4. Forest plot of the overall estimated effect sizes of globe salvage
OR – odds ratio; 95% CI – 95% confidence interval; SE – standard error; df – degrees of freedom.
Fig. 5. Forest plot of the overall estimated effect sizes of metastasis
OR – odds ratio; 95% CI – 95% confidence interval; SE – standard error; df – degrees of freedom.
Fig. 6. Forest plot of the overall estimated effect sizes of mortality rate
OR – odds ratio; 95% CI – 95% confidence interval; SE – standard error; df – degrees of freedom.
Fig. 7. Funnel plots for qualitative assessment of publication bias. A. Enucleation rate; B. Globe salvage; C. Metastasis rate; D. Mortality rate
OR – odds ratio; SE – standard error.

References (56)

  1. Manjandavida F, Stathopoulos C, Zhang J, Honavar S, Shields C. Intra-arterial chemotherapy in retinoblastoma: A paradigm change. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019;67(6):740. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_866_19
  2. Fabian ID, Puccinelli F, Gaillard MC, Beck-Popovic M, Munier FL. Diagnosis and management of secondary epipapillary retinoblastoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(10):1412–1418. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309899
  3. Yassa G, Hassan F, Zakaria A, Nassef A. The role of intra-arterial chemotherapy in the manegment of advanced retinoblastoma: Group D & E. Med J Cairo Univ. 2019;87(9):3393–3400. doi:10.21608/mjcu.2019.65636
  4. Abramson DH, Fabius AWM, Francis JH, et al. Ophthalmic artery chemosurgery for eyes with advanced retinoblastoma. Ophthalmic Genet. 2017;38(1):16–21. doi:10.1080/13816810.2016.1244695
  5. Pekacka A. The role of intraarterial chemotherapy in the management of retinoblastoma. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020:3638410. doi:10.1155/2020/3638410
  6. Shields CL, Lally SE, Leahey AM, et al. Targeted retinoblastoma management: When to use intravenous, intra-arterial, periocular, and intravitreal chemotherapy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2014;25(5):374–385. doi:10.1097/ICU.0000000000000091
  7. Radros J, All-Eriksson C, Pal N, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma in Sweden: Evaluation of treatment efficacy and complications. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96(8):e1040–e1041. doi:10.1111/aos.13796
  8. Yousef YA, Soliman SE, Astudillo PPP, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: A systematic review. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(5):584. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.0244
  9. Ravindran K, Dalvin LA, Pulido JS, Brinjikji W. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J NeuroIntervent Surg. 2019;11(12):1266–1272. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014909
  10. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928
  11. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604
  12. Abramson DH, Dunkel IJ, Brodie SE, Marr B, Gobin YP. Superselective ophthalmic artery chemotherapy as primary treatment for retinoblastoma (chemosurgery). Ophthalmology. 2010;117(8):1623–1629. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.12.030
  13. Gobin YP. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for the management of retinoblastoma: Four-year experience. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(6):732. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.5
  14. Munier FL, Beck-Popovic M, Balmer A, Gaillard MC, Bovey E, Binaghi S. Occurrence of sectoral choroidal occlusive vasculopathy and retinal arteriolar embolization after superselective ophthalmic artery chemotherapy for advanced intraocular retinoblastoma. Retina. 2011;31(3):566–573. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e318203c101
  15. Peterson EC, Elhammady MS, Quintero-Wolfe S, Murray TG, Aziz-Sultan MA. Selective ophthalmic artery infusion of chemotherapy for advanced intraocular retinoblastoma: Initial experience with 17 tumors. J Neurosurg. 2011;114(6):1603–1608. doi:10.3171/2011.1.JNS10466
  16. Suzuki S, Yamane T, Mohri M, Kaneko A. Selective ophthalmic arterial injection therapy for intraocular retinoblastoma: The long-term prognosis. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(10):2081–2087. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.03.013
  17. Marr BP, Brodie SE, Dunkel IJ, Gobin YP, Abramson DH. Three-drug intra-arterial chemotherapy using simultaneous carboplatin, topotecan and melphalan for intraocular retinoblastoma: Preliminary results. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(10):1300–1303. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-301925
  18. Muen WJ, Kingston JE, Robertson F, Brew S, Sagoo MS, Reddy MA. Efficacy and complications of super-selective intra-ophthalmic artery melphalan for the treatment of refractory retinoblastoma. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(3):611–616. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.08.045
  19. Thampi S, Hetts S, Cooke DL, et al. Superselective intra-arterial melphalan therapy for newly diagnosed and refractory retinoblastoma: Results from a single institution. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:981. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S43398
  20. Venturi C, Bracco S, Cerase A, et al. Superselective ophthalmic artery infusion of melphalan for intraocular retinoblastoma: Preliminary results from 140 treatments. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(4):335–342. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.02296.x
  21. Ghassemi F, Ghanaati H, Karkhaneh R, Boujabadi L, ZiaTabatabaie S, Rajabi MT. Outcome of retinoblastoma following limited sessions of intra-arterial chemotherapy in Iran. Iran J Radiol. 2014;11(3):e16958. doi:10.5812/iranjradiol.16958
  22. Shields CL, Manjandavida FP, Lally SE, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma in 70 eyes. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(7):1453–1460. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.026
  23. Taich P, Ceciliano A, Buitrago E, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of intra-arterial melphalan and topotecan combination in patients with retinoblastoma. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(4):889–897. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.10.045
  24. Parareda A, Català J, Carcaboso AM, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: Challenges of a prospective study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(3):209–215. doi:10.1111/aos.12295
  25. Akyüz C, Kıratlı H, Şen H, Aydın B, Tarlan B, Varan A. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: A single-center experience. Ophthalmologica. 2015;234(4):227–232. doi:10.1159/000439357
  26. Ong SJ, Chao AN, Wong HF, Liou KL, Kao LY. Selective ophthalmic arterial injection of melphalan for intraocular retinoblastoma: A 4-year review. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2015;59(2):109–117. doi:10.1007/s10384-014-0356-y
  27. Abramson DH, Marr BP, Francis JH, et al. Simultaneous bilateral ophthalmic artery chemosurgery for bilateral retinoblastoma (tandem therapy). PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0156806. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156806
  28. Chen M, Zhao J, Xia J, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy as primary therapy for retinoblastoma in infants less than 3 months of age: A series of 10 case-studies. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160873. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160873
  29. Leal-Leal CA, Asencio-López L, Higuera-Calleja J, et al. Globe salvage with intra-arterial topotecan-melphalan chemotherapy in children with a single eye. Rev Invest Clin. 2016;68(3):137–142.doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_843_16.
  30. Michaels ST, Abruzzo TA, Augsburger JJ, Corrêa ZM, Lane A, Geller JI. Selective ophthalmic artery infusion chemotherapy for advanced intraocular retinoblastoma: CCHMC early experience. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2016;38(1):65–69. doi:10.1097/MPH.0000000000000471
  31. Tuncer S, Sencer S, Kebudi R, Tanyıldız B, Cebeci Z, Aydın K. Superselective intra-arterial chemotherapy in the primary management of advanced intra-ocular retinoblastoma: First 4-year experience from a single institution in Turkey. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(7):e644–e651. doi:10.1111/aos.13077
  32. Chen M, Jiang H, Zhang J, et al. Outcome of intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma and its influencing factors: A retrospective study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(6):613–618. doi:10.1111/aos.13333
  33. Fabian ID, Naeem Z, Stacey AW, et al. Long-term visual acuity, strabismus, and nystagmus outcomes following multimodality treatment in group D retinoblastoma eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;179:137–144. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2017.05.003
  34. Munier FL, Mosimann P, Puccinelli F, et al. First-line intra-arterial versus intravenous chemotherapy in unilateral sporadic group D retinoblastoma: Evidence of better visual outcomes, ocular survival and shorter time to success with intra-arterial delivery from retrospective review of 20 years of treatment. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(8):1086–1093. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309298
  35. Reddy MA, Naeem Z, Duncan C, et al. Reduction of severe visual loss and complications following intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC) for refractory retinoblastoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(12):1704–1708. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310294
  36. Rishi P, Sharma T, Sharma M, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: Two-year results from tertiary eye-care center in India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017;65(4):311. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_843_16
  37. Francis JH, Levin AM, Zabor EC, Gobin YP, Abramson DH. Ten-year experience with ophthalmic artery chemosurgery: Ocular and recurrence-free survival. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0197081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197081
  38. Funes S, Sampor C, Villasante F, et al. Feasibility and results of an intraarterial chemotherapy program for the conservative treatment of retinoblastoma in Argentina. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65(8):e27086. doi:10.1002/pbc.27086
  39. Hua J, Gang S, Yizhou J, Jing Z. Intra-arterial chemotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced retinoblastoma: A 2-year single-center study in China. J Can Res Ther. 2018;14(1):106. doi:10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_722_17
  40. Kiratli H, Koç İ, Inam O, Varan A, Akyüz C. Retrospective analysis of primarily treated group D retinoblastoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;256(11):2225–2231. doi:10.1007/s00417-018-4051-4
  41. Rojanaporn D, Chanthanaphak E, Boonyaopas R, Sujirakul T, Hongeng S, Na Ayudhaya S. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: 8-year experience from a tertiary referral institute in Thailand. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2019;8(3):211–217. doi:10.22608/APO.2018294
  42. Liu CC, Mohmood A, Hamzah N, Lau JH, Khaliddin N, Rahmat J. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: Our first three-and-a-half years’ experience in Malaysia. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232249. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232249
  43. Batu Oto B, Sarıcı AM, Kızılkılıç O. Superselective intra-arterial chemotherapy treatment for retinoblastoma: Clinical experience from a tertiary referral centre. Can J Ophthalmol. 2020;55(5):406–412. doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2020.04.009
  44. Rishi P, Agarwal A, Chatterjee P, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: Four-year results from tertiary center in India. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2020;6(1):66–73. doi:10.1159/000500010
  45. González ME, Gaviria ML, López M, Escudero PA, Bravo A, Vargas SA. Eye salvage with intra-arterial and intra-vitreal chemotherapy in patients with retinoblastoma: 8-year single-institution experience in Colombia. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2021;7(3):215–223. doi:10.1159/000511980
  46. Linde L, Mustak H. The outcomes of intra-arterial chemotherapy in retinoblastoma: A South African perspective. S Afr Ophthalmol J. 2021;16(4):13–17. Accessed January 20, 2022.
  47. Oporto JI, Zúñiga P, Ossandón D, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma treatment in Chile: Experience and results 2013–2020. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol (Engl Ed). 2021;96(6):288–292. doi:10.1016/j.oftale.2020.10.003
  48. Shields CL, Dockery PW, Yaghy A, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma in 341 consecutive eyes (1,292 infusions): Comparative analysis of outcomes based on patient age, race, and sex. J AAPOS. 2021;25(3):150.e1–150.e9. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2020.12.006
  49. Li J, Jing C, Hua X, et al. Outcome of salvage intra-arterial chemotherapy for recurrent retinoblastoma. Eye. 2022;36(11):2106–2110. doi:10.1038/s41433-021-01693-w
  50. Al Saiegh F, Chalouhi N, Sweid A, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma via the transradial route: Technique, feasibility, and case series. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;194:105824. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105824
  51. Yamane T, Kaneko A, Mohri M. The technique of ophthalmic arterial infusion therapy for patients with intraocular retinoblastoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2004;9(2):69–73. doi:10.1007/s10147-004-0392-6
  52. Sidipratomo P, Pandelaki J, Matondang SBRE, et al. Intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: Our first experience in Indonesia. Radiol Case Rep. 2022;17(12):4713–4716. doi:10.1016/j.radcr.2022.09.004
  53. Chen Q, Zhang B, Dong Y, et al. Comparison between intravenous chemotherapy and intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma: A meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):486. doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4406-6
  54. Xu K, Liu J, Zhang C. Intra-arterial chemotherapy combined with VEC intravenous chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced retinoblastoma. J BUON. 2020;25(2):1199–1205. PMID:32521926.
  55. Kaliki S. Postenucleation adjuvant chemotherapy with vincristine, etoposide, and carboplatin for the treatment of high-risk retinoblastoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(11):1422. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.289
  56. Kaliki S, Shields CL, Rojanaporn D, et al. High-risk retinoblastoma based on international classification of retinoblastoma: Analysis of 519 enucleated eyes. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(5):997–1003. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.10.044