The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024
Intraocular medulloepithelioma clinical features and management of 11 cases.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yi Xiuqian, Meng Fengxi, Bi Yingwen, He Lin, Qian Jiang, Xue Kang
Аннотация
AIMS: To describe the clinical features, imaging characteristics, histopathology, treatment and outcomes of intraocular medulloepithelioma.
METHODS: Medical records of 11 patients with clinically or histopathologically confirmed medulloepithelioma were retrieved and reviewed. Clinical features, diagnostic challenges, imaging characteristics, management, histopathology and prognosis were assessed.
RESULTS: The median age of the patients at initial diagnosis was 4 years, with the most common manifestations being leukocoria (five eyes), loss of vision (four eyes), ocular pain (one eye) and ophthalmic screening (one eye). The clinical signs include a grey-white ciliary body lesion, cataract or lens subluxation, secondary glaucoma and evident cysts. The ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) imaging most commonly displays ciliary body mass with intratumoural cysts (nine eyes). Three patients underwent surgery for cataract or glaucoma while the tumours were incidentally found. Two of the three patients managed by eye preserve treatments eventually required enucleation because of local tumour recurrence or phthisis. One patient treated with intra-arterial chemotherapy and cryotherapy had successful tumour regression and globe salvage.
CONCLUSIONS: Initial misdiagnosis, delay in diagnosis and subsequent misdirected management is not uncommon in medulloepithelioma. The presence of multiple cysts in the tumour and retrolental neoplastic cyclitic membrane detected by UBM can offer certain information. Selective intra-arterial melphalan may prevent further tumour growth, but longer follow-up is necessary until treatment efficacy is fully evaluated.
METHODS: Medical records of 11 patients with clinically or histopathologically confirmed medulloepithelioma were retrieved and reviewed. Clinical features, diagnostic challenges, imaging characteristics, management, histopathology and prognosis were assessed.
RESULTS: The median age of the patients at initial diagnosis was 4 years, with the most common manifestations being leukocoria (five eyes), loss of vision (four eyes), ocular pain (one eye) and ophthalmic screening (one eye). The clinical signs include a grey-white ciliary body lesion, cataract or lens subluxation, secondary glaucoma and evident cysts. The ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) imaging most commonly displays ciliary body mass with intratumoural cysts (nine eyes). Three patients underwent surgery for cataract or glaucoma while the tumours were incidentally found. Two of the three patients managed by eye preserve treatments eventually required enucleation because of local tumour recurrence or phthisis. One patient treated with intra-arterial chemotherapy and cryotherapy had successful tumour regression and globe salvage.
CONCLUSIONS: Initial misdiagnosis, delay in diagnosis and subsequent misdirected management is not uncommon in medulloepithelioma. The presence of multiple cysts in the tumour and retrolental neoplastic cyclitic membrane detected by UBM can offer certain information. Selective intra-arterial melphalan may prevent further tumour growth, but longer follow-up is necessary until treatment efficacy is fully evaluated.