Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 17;13(8):1942.
doi: 10.3390/cancers13081942.

At What Age Could Screening for Familial Retinoblastoma Be Discontinued? A Systematic Review

Milo van Hoefen Wijsard  1 , Saskia H Serné  1 , René H Otten  2 , Machteld I Bosscha  1 , Charlotte J Dommering  3 , Armida W Fabius  1 , Annette C Moll  1
Affiliations

At What Age Could Screening for Familial Retinoblastoma Be Discontinued? A Systematic Review

Milo van Hoefen Wijsard et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review is to assess the latest age at diagnosis for detection of familial retinoblastoma in order to evaluate at what age screening of at-risk children could be discontinued. Extended screening beyond this age would result in unnecessary patient burden and costs. However, discontinuing screening prematurely would have the adverse effect of missing tumors. We performed a literature search (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library) up until February of 2021 and systematically included studies where patients had a family history of retinoblastoma, a known age at diagnosis, and who were ophthalmologically screened for retinoblastoma from birth. A total of 176 familial retinoblastoma patients from 17 studies were included in this review. Based on 48 months of age being the latest age of diagnosis, ophthalmological screening for familial retinoblastoma could safely be discontinued at age four years.

Keywords: age at diagnosis; familial retinoblastoma; screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the study inclusion process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dimaras H., Corson T.W., Cobrinik D., White A., Zhao J., Munier F.L., Abramson D.H., Shields C.L., Chantada G.L., Njuguna F., et al. Retinoblastoma. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers. 2015;1:15021. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2015.21. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Munier F.L., Beck-Popovic M., Chantada G.L., Cobrinik D., Kivela T.T., Lohmann D., Maeder P., Moll A.C., Carcaboso A.M., Moulin A., et al. Conservative management of retinoblastoma: Challenging orthodoxy without compromising the state of metastatic grace. “Alive, with good vision and no comorbidity”. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2019;73:100764. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.05.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Noorani H.Z., Khan H.N., Gallie B.L., Detsky A.S. Cost comparison of molecular versus conventional screening of relatives at risk for retinoblastoma. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1996;59:301–307. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moll A.C., Imhof S.M., Meeteren A.Y., Boers M. At what age could screening for familial retinoblastoma be stopped? A register based study 1945–1998. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1170–1172. doi: 10.1136/bjo.84.10.1170. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rothschild P.R., Levy D., Savignoni A., Lumbroso-Le Rouic L., Aerts I., Gauthier-Villars M., Esteve M., Bours D., Desjardins L., Doz F., et al. Familial retinoblastoma: Fundus screening schedule impact and guideline proposal. A retrospective study. Eye. 2011;25:55–61. doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.198. - DOI - PMC - PubMed