Eye (London, England) · 2022
Survey of ophthalmic imaging use to assess risk of progression of choroidal nevus to melanoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
DeSimone Joseph D, Dockery Philip W, Kreinces Jason B, Soares Rebecca R, Shields Carol L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to ascertain the use of ocular imaging and the updated screening criteria in the evaluation of choroidal nevus across the United States.
METHODS: Sixty ophthalmologists completed an anonymous 21-question survey addressing their use of the screening criteria for evaluating choroidal nevi, as well as their use of ultrasonography (US), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and autofluorescence (AF) in daily practice.
RESULTS: The majority of respondents were from the Northeast (55%), worked in private practice (83%), and practiced general ophthalmology (42%). The 2009 criteria TFSOM-UHHD was used by 39 (65%) respondents, while the 2019 criteria TFSOM-DIM was used by 29 (48%) respondents. Compared to anterior segment ophthalmologists, posterior segment ophthalmologists were more likely to use the TFSOM-UHHD criteria (94% vs. 53%, OR = 13.9, p = 0.014), the TFSOM-DIM criteria (88% vs. 33%, OR = 15.5, p < 0.001), fundus AF (82% vs. 19%, OR = 20.4, p < 0.001), and US (94% vs. 42%, OR = 22.2, p = 0.004) in daily practice.
CONCLUSIONS: From the survey of current practice patterns, we learned that there is a general trend of underutilization of the proper imaging modalities - and thus the criteria - in evaluating choroidal nevus. More education about ocular cancer and its screening could improve patient outcomes in the future.
METHODS: Sixty ophthalmologists completed an anonymous 21-question survey addressing their use of the screening criteria for evaluating choroidal nevi, as well as their use of ultrasonography (US), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and autofluorescence (AF) in daily practice.
RESULTS: The majority of respondents were from the Northeast (55%), worked in private practice (83%), and practiced general ophthalmology (42%). The 2009 criteria TFSOM-UHHD was used by 39 (65%) respondents, while the 2019 criteria TFSOM-DIM was used by 29 (48%) respondents. Compared to anterior segment ophthalmologists, posterior segment ophthalmologists were more likely to use the TFSOM-UHHD criteria (94% vs. 53%, OR = 13.9, p = 0.014), the TFSOM-DIM criteria (88% vs. 33%, OR = 15.5, p < 0.001), fundus AF (82% vs. 19%, OR = 20.4, p < 0.001), and US (94% vs. 42%, OR = 22.2, p = 0.004) in daily practice.
CONCLUSIONS: From the survey of current practice patterns, we learned that there is a general trend of underutilization of the proper imaging modalities - and thus the criteria - in evaluating choroidal nevus. More education about ocular cancer and its screening could improve patient outcomes in the future.