Surgical Outcomes of Dacryocystorhinostomy in Lacrimal Drainage Obstruction after Systemic Chemotherapy or Radioactive Iodine Therapy

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in patients with secondary lacrimal drainage obstruction associated with systemic chemotherapy or radioactive iodine therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of patients diagnosed with secondary lacrimal drainage obstruction after systemic chemotherapy or radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid disease and surgical treatment by endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy between January 2009 and January 2015. The control group included randomly selected patients who underwent endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy after diagnosis of primary lacrimal drainage obstruction. RESULTS: Patients were separated into a chemotherapy group (13 eyes of 9 patients), a radioactive iodine therapy group (44 eyes of 32 patients), and a control group (50 eyes of 40 patients). Duration from the onset of systemic chemotherapy or radioactive iodine to the first epiphora symptom was shorter in the chemotherapy group than the radioactive iodine therapy group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the three groups in success rate of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with secondary lacrimal drainage obstruction associated with systemic chemotherapy or radioactive iodine therapy had successful outcome of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. The success rate of dacryocystorhinostomy was comparable to that in patients with primary lacrimal drainage obstruction.

Two Cases of Lacrimal Drainage Obstruction Associated With S-1 Anticancer Treatment

PURPOSE: To report two cases of lacrimal drainage obstruction associated with the anticancer drug S-1 (tegafur, gimeracil, oteracil ; TS-1(R), Taiho Pharmaceutical, Japan). CASE SUMMARY: (Case 1) A 34-year-old male who had previously undergone a total gastrectomy for treatment of gastric cancer visited with epiphora in both eyes that had developed 6 months after S-1 treatment. On examination, a right canalicular obstruction and left punctal and nasolacrimal partial obstruction were noted. Endoscopic dacrycystorhinostomy with lacrimal trephinization was done in the right eye and punctoplasty with punctal membrane removal and silicone tube intubation were performed in the left eye and the epiphora were successfully treated. (Case 2) A 60-year-old male who was treated with S-1 for gastric cancer presented with tearing in both eyes that had developed 2 months after S-1 treatment. Ophthalmic examinations revealed a right nasolacrimal partial obstruction in the right eye and lacrimal sac obstruction in the left. Silicone intubations were performed on both sides and the epiphora were successfully treated. CONCLUSIONS: Lacrimal drainage obstructions may develop after S-1 treatment. Therefore, ophthalmologic evaluations should be performed in patients treated with S-1 to detect lacrimal drainage obstruction.