You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Ocular adnexal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma: the low-dose dilemma
  1. Vincent Camus,
  2. Fabrice Jardin,
  3. Hervé Tilly
  1. Department of Hematology, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Vincent Camus, Department of Hematology, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen 76038, France; vincent.camus{at}chb.unicancer.fr

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314861

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The recent publication by Hindso et al 1 confirmed the excellent outcome of extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of the ocular adnexa (OA-EMZL) with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) as a stand-alone therapy, with an impressive 95% rate of 10-year disease-free survival. In the largest study to date of OA-EMZL patients from seven eyes cancer centres, 352 patients received EBRT as first treatment of localised disease with a median radiation dose of 26 Grays (Gy) (range 4–60 Gy) and the authors concluded that low-dose EBRT would appear to be the best treatment of choice in localised OA-EMZL.1 This important study does not display data regarding the number of patients that received the very low-dose radiation therapy (VLDRT) of 4 Gy. It would also be interesting to report long-term effects based on the dose received. These elements are required to discuss the benefit of low-dose EBRT because of the unfavourable prognosis of the relapses of these OA-EMZL1 and the risk of cataract formation.2 The risk of cataract was associated with delivered dose >30 Gy and omitted …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Conception and design, administrative support, provision of study materials or patients, collection and assembly of data, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing, final approval of manuscript: all authors.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests HT: Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immunogen: Honoraria. VC: Gilead: Honoraria—Amgen: Honoraria—BMS: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. FJ: Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgen: Honoraria.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.