Jackelien van Beek

Mrs. Jackelien van Beek

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

9Years (2018-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2021 in Radiotherapy and Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JBJackelien van Beek
Jackelien van Beek
WRWishal Ramdas
Wishal Ramdas
MAMartina Angi
Martina Angi
CRCaroline M. van Rij
Caroline M. van Rij
NNNicole C. Naus
Nicole C. Naus
EKEmine Kilic
Emine Kilic
To compare the adverse side effects of fractionated stereotactic photon beam radiotherapy (fSRT) with proton beam radiotherapy (PBR) in patients with uveal melanoma (UM). A retrospective study investigating 306 UM patients treated with fSRT (N=153) by the Rotterdam Ocular Melanoma Study group (ROMS), The Netherlands, between 1999-2014 or with PBR (N=153) at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital and the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Bebington, United Kingdom, between 1993-2014. The tumours treated with fSRT were matched with tumours treated with PBR based on sex, left or right eye, TNM classification, posterior margin ≤ or > 3mm of the fovea and of the optic disc. The five-year actuarial rates of tumour recurrence were 4.5% for fSRT and 6.1% for PBR. For fSRT and PBR, the five-year actuarial rates of maculopathy were 14.9% and 12.4%, and for vitreous haemorrhage were 29.4% and 4.7%, respectively. Only vitreous haemorrhage (HR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.07-0.56) was more common after fSRT compared to PBR. Overall, larger tumours were risk factors for maculopathy and secondary enucleation. Both treatments have excellent local tumour control. In matched groups, vitreous haemorrhage was the only adverse side effect showing a significant difference between groups.

3 October 2018 in Acta Ophthalmologica
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JBJackelien van Beek
Jackelien van Beek
GBGabrielle H.S. Buitendijk
Gabrielle H.S. Buitendijk
RTReinier Timman
Reinier Timman
KMKarin Muller
Karin Muller
GLGregorius P.M. Luyten
Gregorius P.M. Luyten
EKEmine Kiliç
Emine Kiliç

15 February 2019 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JBJackelien van Beek
Jackelien van Beek
QBQuincy van den Bosch
Quincy van den Bosch
NNNicole Naus
Nicole Naus
DPDion Paridaens
Dion Paridaens
AKAnnelies de Klein
Annelies de Klein
RVRobert M. Verdijk
Robert M. Verdijk
The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of intraocular lymphatic vessels in patients with uveal melanomas and extrascleral extension using a panel of lymphatic markers. The following immunohistochemical markers were analyzed: lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronic acid receptor-1 (LYVE-1), podoplanin (D2-40), prospero-related homeobox gene-1 (Prox-1), pan-endothelial marker cluster of differentiation 31 (CD31), and blood vessel endothelium-specific CD34. Lymphatic vessels were defined as a combination of staining of the following positive markers: LYVE-1, D2-40, Prox-1, and CD31; and no staining of the negative marker CD34. In total, 456 patients were enucleated; 16 of the 46 uveal melanomas with extrascleral extension were contained in stored paraffin tissue. Two samples of the 16 uveal melanomas showed focal positive intraocular vascular staining for LYVE-1 and co-expression of CD31 and CD34. Due to the lack of Prox-1 and D2-40, and positive expression of CD34, these cannot be classified as lymphatic vessels. In one case recruitment of an extraocular, intratumoral lymphatic vascular structure was observed in the periphery of the subconjunctival extrascleral extension. Intraocular lymphatic vessels are absent in uveal melanomas with extrascleral extension; however, we provide proof for recruitment of intratumoral lymphatics by uveal melanomas with extraocular extension from subconjunctival lymphatics that may explain the rare cases of regional lymphatic spread. A panel of antibodies is necessary to detect lymphatic vessels with high specificity.

16 September 2021 in Acta Ophthalmologica
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JBJackelien van Beek
Jackelien van Beek
CRCaroline M. van Rij
Caroline M. van Rij
SBSara J. Baart
Sara J. Baart
SYSerdar Yavuzyigitoglu
Serdar Yavuzyigitoglu
MBMichael J. Bergmann
Michael J. Bergmann
EKEmine Kilic
Emine Kilic
Purpose: The aim of our study is to evaluate local tumour control rates, radiation side‐effects, visual preservation and disease‐free survival (DFS) of uveal melanoma (UM) patients treated with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (fSRT).Methods: A retrospective study of UM patients, who were treated with fSRT (N = 189), was performed by the Rotterdam Ocular Melanoma Study group (ROMS), the Netherlands, between 1999 and 2014 with a follow‐up of at least 5 years.Results: The 1‐, 3‐, 5‐, 10‐ and 15‐year local tumour control rates were as follows: 99.4%, 92.8%, 92.2%, 89.3% and 89.3%, respectively. Cataract (67.8%) was the most common side‐effect of fSRT followed by retinopathy (35.1%), maculopathy (23.8%), vitreous haemorrhage (20.1%), neovascular glaucoma (NVG) (20.0%) and optic neuropathy (12.4%). Patients with anterior located UMs developed cataract more frequently (p = 0.047, multivariable analysis). By multivariable analysis, significant factors for secondary enucleation were tumour recurrence (p < 0.001) and NVG (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, risk factors for a worse DFS were larger UM (p = 0.024) and tumours with subretinal fluid (SRF) at baseline (p = 0.038). The 5‐year DFS was 77.0% and the best corrected visual acuity decreased significantly after treatment. After 5 years, 22.0% of patients and after 10 years 17.6% of patients had a visual acuity of ≤0.3 logMAR.Conclusion: Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy is a good treatment option for small‐, medium‐ and large‐sized tumours with 5‐year local tumour control of 92.2%. After 5 years, 22.0% of the patients had a good vision. Independently of tumour location, the visual acuity decreased significantly after treatment. Overall, the 5‐year DFS was 77.0%.