Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

One-off 16 Gray stereotactic radiotherapy reduces anti-VEGF injections but results in worse visual acuityRadiation for wet AMD cuts injections but harms vision

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that while SRT reduces injection frequency, it is associated with significantly worse visual acuity at year 4.

This randomized controlled trial enrolled 411 participants aged at least 50 years with chronic, pretreated, active neovascular age-related macular degeneration across 30 NHS hospitals. Patients were assigned to receive either one-off 16 Gray stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) or sham SRT.

At the 4-year follow-up, the primary outcome for superiority was the number of anti-VEGF injections. The SRT group mean was 19.1 (SD 10.9) compared to 21.6 (SD 11.3) in the sham group, representing an adjusted decrease of 3.2 injections (95% CI -5.7 to -0.7). However, for the non-inferiority outcome of visual acuity at year 4, the SRT group performed 8.3 letters worse than the sham group (95% CI -12.7 to -4.0).

Safety data indicated that adverse event rates were similar between groups. During years 3 and 4, cumulative injections were comparable between groups (8.4 in SRT vs 8.3 in sham). A key limitation noted was that the inferior vision outcomes at year 4 invalidated previous conclusions from the year 2 analysis. Consequently, SRT does not support treatment for neovascular AMD due to these visual outcomes.

How this fits prior evidence

How this fits prior evidence: This finding addresses a gap and reinforces previous findings regarding radiotherapy in neovascular AMD. Specifically, it confirms that radiotherapy combined with anti-VEGF therapy increases risk of vision loss compared to anti-VEGF monotherapy in nAMD. While the SRT group showed an adjusted decrease of 3.2 injections, the associated inferior visual acuity (8.3 letters worse) aligns with previous evidence regarding the risks of combining radiotherapy with standard care.

For people with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), getting regular anti-VEGF injections into the eye can be a burden. A new trial tested whether a one-time radiation treatment could reduce that burden. The answer is complicated.

The study followed 411 patients at 30 NHS hospitals in the UK for four years. Those who got a single dose of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) needed about 3 fewer injections over four years compared to those who got a sham treatment. That sounds promising.

But here's the catch: the SRT group ended up with worse vision. On average, they could read 8.3 fewer letters on an eye chart than the sham group. The researchers say this vision loss reverses the earlier positive conclusions from the two-year mark.

So while the radiation did reduce the number of injections, it came at a cost to eyesight. The study authors conclude that SRT no longer supports treatment for wet AMD because of these inferior vision outcomes.

What this means for you:
Radiation cut injections but led to worse vision, so it's not recommended for wet AMD.

Common questions

What is wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD)?

Wet AMD is an eye condition where abnormal blood vessels grow under the retina and leak fluid, causing rapid vision loss. It is treated with regular injections of anti-VEGF drugs into the eye to stop the leakage.

How did the radiation treatment work in this study?

Patients received a one-time dose of 16 Gray stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) aimed at the eye. The goal was to reduce the need for repeated anti-VEGF injections. The study compared SRT to a sham (fake) treatment.

Did the radiation treatment reduce the number of injections?

Yes. Over four years, the SRT group needed an average of 19.1 injections compared to 21.6 in the sham group, a decrease of about 3 injections. However, during years 3 and 4, the number of injections was similar between groups.

What were the side effects of the radiation treatment?

The rates of adverse events were similar between the SRT and sham groups. The main downside was that vision was worse in the SRT group, with an average loss of 8.3 letters on an eye chart compared to sham.

Should I consider radiation treatment for wet AMD?

Based on this study, the answer is no. The researchers concluded that SRT no longer supports treatment for wet AMD because the vision outcomes were worse, even though injections were reduced. Talk to your doctor about current standard treatments.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 411
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up600.0 mo
PublishedJun 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) for neovascular age related macular degeneration (AMD) beyond the two year primary outcome of the StereoTactic radiotherapy for wet Age-Related macular degeneration (STAR) trial. DESIGN: Randomised, double masked, sham controlled, device trial involving preplanned recall from standard care. SETTING: 30 NHS hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 411 participants aged at least 50 years with chronic, pretreated, active AMD. INTERVENTION: Participants received one-off 16 Gray SRT or sham SRT delivered using a robotically controlled device. After two years of monthly study visits, participants reverted to routine care, with anti-VEGF drug selection and dosing intervals based on local practice, but with masking maintained, and repeat data collection at years 3 and 4 study visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main efficacy outcome at year 4 was the number of anti-VEGF injections, tested for superiority (fewer injections). The other main outcome was visual acuity, tested for non-inferiority (five letter margin). Safety outcomes included adverse events, serious adverse events, and microvascular abnormalities. The same analyses were undertaken at years 2, 3, and 4. A within trial costing analysis was undertaken for participants with four years' follow-up. RESULTS: Of 411 participants (204 (58%) women), 274 were allocated to SRT and 137 to sham SRT. The year 4 intention-to-treat efficacy analysis included 222 (81%) participants in the SRT group and 106 (77%) in the sham SRT group. The SRT group received a mean of 19.1 (standard deviation 10.9) injections over four years versus 21.6 (11.3) with sham SRT, an adjusted decrease of 3.2 injections (95% confidence interval (CI) of difference -5.7 to -0.7). During years 3 and 4, the SRT group received a mean cumulative 8.4 injections versus 8.3 injections in the sham SRT group. The final change in visual acuity in the SRT group was 8.3 letters worse than in the sham group (95% CI of difference -12.7 to -4.0). Adverse event rates were similar between groups, but reading centre-detected microvascular abnormalities occurred in 126/218 SRT treated eyes (58%) and 16/102 (16%) sham SRT treated eyes. CONCLUSION: Although the overall reduction in intravitreal therapy was maintained to year 4, the inferior vision in SRT treated eyes effectively reversed the conclusions of the year 2 primary outcome analysis and no longer supports the use of SRT to treat neovascular AMD. Including standard care, masked, extended follow-up within a clinical trial may provide useful clinical insight. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02243878.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.