4.7 Article

Diagnostic Accuracy of Vitreous Cytology in Patients with Vitreoretinal Lymphoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11216450

关键词

eye neoplasm; masquerade syndrome; vitreous cytology; lymphoma

资金

  1. Yonsei University College of Medicine [2017-32-0037]
  2. Korean Association of Retinal Degeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vitreous cytology has a lower detection rate for VRL compared to other tests, especially in patients who received steroid pretreatment. Even if vitreous cytology findings are negative, other tests and characteristic fundus findings should be evaluated to confirm VRL diagnosis.
(1) Background: To determine the diagnostic value of vitreous cytology in patients with vitreoretinal lymphoma (VRL) and evaluate its diagnostic accuracy relative to that of other diagnostic tests. (2) Methods: In total, 38 eyes from 38 patients with VRL who underwent diagnostic vitrectomy and were followed up for at least 6 months were analyzed. The clinical manifestations and VRL diagnostic rates for all diagnostic tests were determined. (3) Results: The presence of vitreous cells/opacity was the most common ophthalmic finding (97.4%), followed by sub-retinal pigment epithelial infiltration (65.8%) and retinal hemorrhage (21.1%). The VRL diagnostic rates were 89.3% for interleukin (IL)-10 levels > 50 pg/mL; 82.1% for IL-10/IL-6 ratios > 1; 60.0% and 63.3% for immunoglobulin heavy chain and kappa light chain clonality assays, respectively; and 44.4% for vitreous cytology. The VRL diagnostic rate for vitreous cytology was significantly lower in the steroid pretreatment group than in the non-steroid pretreatment group (p = 0.007). (4) Conclusions: The VRL detection rate for vitreous cytology was lower than that for the other tests, especially in patients who received steroid pretreatment. These findings suggest that even if vitreous cytology findings are negative, other tests and characteristic fundus findings should be evaluated to confirm VRL diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据