Ophthalmology. Retina · 2019
Maculopathy in Patients with Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance.
Клинический случайСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Smith Stephen J, Johnson Mark W, Ober Michael D, Comer Grant M, Smith Brian D
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To describe clinical findings, laboratory values, and treatment response of patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) demonstrating neurosensory macular detachment.
DESIGN: Retrospective case series.
PARTICIPANTS: Seven eyes of 4 patients (3 men and 1 woman; age range, 60-81 years) with neurosensory macular detachment, treatment-resistant submacular fluid, and vitelliform material.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical and ocular histories, ocular examination findings, retinal imaging, ocular disease course, and laboratory findings in 4 patients with submacular fluid associated with MGUS.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Description of the macular findings and treatment courses of 4 patients diagnosed with MGUS maculopathy.
RESULTS: Seven eyes of 4 patients demonstrated neurosensory macular detachment with treatment-resistant submacular fluid and vitelliform material. No eyes demonstrated signs of significant hyperviscosity retinopathy. Fluorescein angiography showed no definite leakage in any involved eye. Laboratory evaluation revealed immunoglobulin G MGUS in all 4 patients. All 4 patients were resistant to treatments aimed at resolving the subretinal fluid, including some combination of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections, photodynamic therapy, topical dorzolamide, oral dosing of eplerenone or acetazolamide, or some combination thereof. In 3 patients, MGUS underwent malignant transformation 24 to 144 months after diagnosis, in 1 patient to lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma and in 2 patients to multiple myeloma. The fourth patient showed no evidence of malignancy 8 years after diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Submacular fluid without fluorescein leakage and unresponsive to conventional treatment may suggest an underlying immunoproliferative disorder that we have termed monoclonal gammopathy of macular significance. Given the propensity for monoclonal gammopathy of macular significance to transform into malignant disease in our series, serum protein analysis should be considered in patients with neurosensory macular detachment not attributable to known causes.
DESIGN: Retrospective case series.
PARTICIPANTS: Seven eyes of 4 patients (3 men and 1 woman; age range, 60-81 years) with neurosensory macular detachment, treatment-resistant submacular fluid, and vitelliform material.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical and ocular histories, ocular examination findings, retinal imaging, ocular disease course, and laboratory findings in 4 patients with submacular fluid associated with MGUS.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Description of the macular findings and treatment courses of 4 patients diagnosed with MGUS maculopathy.
RESULTS: Seven eyes of 4 patients demonstrated neurosensory macular detachment with treatment-resistant submacular fluid and vitelliform material. No eyes demonstrated signs of significant hyperviscosity retinopathy. Fluorescein angiography showed no definite leakage in any involved eye. Laboratory evaluation revealed immunoglobulin G MGUS in all 4 patients. All 4 patients were resistant to treatments aimed at resolving the subretinal fluid, including some combination of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections, photodynamic therapy, topical dorzolamide, oral dosing of eplerenone or acetazolamide, or some combination thereof. In 3 patients, MGUS underwent malignant transformation 24 to 144 months after diagnosis, in 1 patient to lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma and in 2 patients to multiple myeloma. The fourth patient showed no evidence of malignancy 8 years after diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Submacular fluid without fluorescein leakage and unresponsive to conventional treatment may suggest an underlying immunoproliferative disorder that we have termed monoclonal gammopathy of macular significance. Given the propensity for monoclonal gammopathy of macular significance to transform into malignant disease in our series, serum protein analysis should be considered in patients with neurosensory macular detachment not attributable to known causes.