A retrospective study investigates MEK inhibitor-associated retinopathy outcomes in Korean patients, suggesting effective management approaches.
Purpose: To investigate the clinical characteristics, onset timing, and anatomical and functional outcomes of MEK inhibitor-associated retinopathy (MEKAR) in Korean patients receiving systemic MEK inhibitor therapy.Methods: This retrospective study included 16 patients diagnosed with MEKAR between January 2011 and August 2025.Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), subfoveal choroidal thickness (CT), and optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings were evaluated at baseline, at MEKAR onset, and at final follow-up.Results: Mean age was 57.8 10.6 years, with a male predominance (68.8%).Colorectal cancer was the most common primary malignancy (56.3%), followed by lung cancer and malignant melanoma (18.7% each).MEKAR developed after a median of 3.3 weeks (IQR, 1.9-4.4weeks) following therapy initiation, and the median time to initial improvement was 2.4 weeks (IQR, 1.3-8.1 weeks).At onset, 62.6% of patients reported ocular symptoms, while 37.4% were asymptomatic.OCT showed reversible retinal changes, most commonly ellipsoid zone thickening (68.8%) and focal subretinal fluid (43.8%), all of which resolved completely.CMT increased transiently at onset compared with baseline (p = 0.002) and normalized at final follow-up (p < 0.001), with no baseline-final difference (p = 0.489).CT remained stable (p = 0.159).BCVA was preserved, with a median of 0.00 logMAR at baseline, onset and final follow-up.Patients undergoing dose modification or interruption showed faster improvement than those continuing therapy (median, 9 vs. 81 days; p = 0.004).One patient showed multiple recurrent episodes, all of which resolved without visual deterioration.Conclusions: MEKAR developed early after treatment initiation and followed a transient, fully reversible course with preserved visual function.Although dose modification accelerated anatomical recovery, long-term outcomes remained favorable even with continued therapy, supporting close monitoring and individualized management rather than routine interruption, particularly in mild or asymptomatic cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: