An international survey of classification and treatment choices for group D retinoblastoma

Christina Scelfo, Jasmine H. Francis, Vikas Khetan, Thomas Jenkins, Brian Marr, David H. Abramson, Carol L. Shields, Jacob Pe’er, Francis Munier, Jesse Berry, J. William Harbour, Andrey Yarovoy, Evandro Lucena, Timothy G. Murray, Pooja Bhagia, Evelyn Paysse, Samuray Tuncer, Guillermo L. Chantada, Annette C. Moll, Tatiana UshakovaDavid A. Plager, Islamov Ziyovuddin, Carlos A. Leal, Miguel A. Materin, Xun Da Ji, Jose W. Cursino, Rodrigo Polania, Hayyam Kiratli, Charlotta All-Ericsson, Rejin Kebudi, Santosh G. Honavar, Vicktoria Vishnevskia-Dai, Sidnel Epelman, Anthony B. Daniels, Jeanie D. Ling, Fousseyni Traore, Marco A. Ramirez-Ortiz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

35 Citations (Scopus)


• AIM: To determine which IIRC scheme was used by retinoblastoma centers worldwide and the percentage of D eyes treated primarily with enucleation versus globe salvaging therapies as well as to correlate trends in treatment choice to IIRC version used and geographic region. • METHODS: An anonymized electronic survey was offered to 115 physicians at 39 retinoblastoma centers worldwide asking about IIRC classification schemes and treatment patterns used between 2008 and 2012. Participants were asked to record which version of the IIRC was used for classification, how many group D eyes were diagnosed, and how many eyes were treated with enucleation versus globe salvaging therapies. Averages of eyes per treatment modality were calculated and stratified by both IIRC version and geographic region. Statistical significance was determined by Chi-square, ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests using Prism. • RESULTS: The survey was completed by 29% of physicians invited to participate. Totally 1807 D eyes were diagnosed. Regarding IIRC system, 27% of centers used the Childrenfs Hospital of Los Angeles (CHLA) version, 33% used the Childrenfs Oncology Group (COG) version, 23% used the Philadelphia version, and 17% were unsure. The rate for primary enucleation varied between 0 and 100% and the mean was 29%. By IIRC version, primary enucleation rates were: Philadelphia, 8%; COG, 34%; and CHLA, 37%. By geographic region, primary enucleation rates were: Latin America, 57%; Asia, 40%; Europe, 36%; Africa, 10%, US, 8%; and Middle East, 8%. However, systemic chemoreduction was used more often than enucleation in all regions except Latin America with a mean of 57% per center (P<0.0001). • CONCLUSION: Worldwide there is no consensus on which IIRC version is used, systemic chemoreduction was the most frequently used initial treatment during the study period followed by enucleation and primary treatment modality, especially enucleation, varied greatly with regards to IIRC version used and geographic region.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)961-967
Number of pages7
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 18 Jun 2017


  • Cancer
  • Chemotherapy
  • Enucleation
  • Intra-arterial chemotherapy
  • Oncology
  • Ophthalmic artery chemosurgery
  • Retina
  • Retinoblastoma

Cite this