4.4 Article

Clinicopathological correlation of choroidal neovascularization after external beam radiotherapy in age-related macular degeneration

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-003-0634-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To analyze the histopathology of choroidal neovascularization after external beam radiotherapy in age-related macular degeneration. Methods: A retrospective non-case-matched comparative histopathologic study. The histoarchitecture of nine surgically removed subretinal specimens from nine patients that had undergone external beam radiotherapy for exudative age-related macular degeneration was studied. Seven patients had received 20 Gy in 10 fractions and two 15 Gy in 5 fractions with an average time interval between radiotherapy and surgical extraction of 14 months (range 3-28). A consecutive series of classic, mixed and occult choroidal neovascular membranes served as controls. Results: Clinical findings. Radiation-associated choroidal neovasculopathy was angiographically suspected in four patients: a coarse net of vessels on fluorescein angiography developing at the border of previously irradiated choroidal neovascularization was observed in three patients; blebs at the margin of a plaque on indocyanine green angiography were observed in two patients. Pathological findings. Diffuse drusen as well as intra-Bruch's fibrovascular tissue was found in all irradiated specimens. In four specimens an edematous vascularized layer was seen between diffuse drusen and normal-appearing intra-Bruch's fibrovascular tissue. This lesion was not found in the control specimens. A particular correlation for the bleb lesion was not recognized. Conclusion: The appearance of an edematous subretinal pigment epithelial vascularized layer between diffuse drusen and normal-appearing fibrovascular tissue in four of nine irradiated membranes may be secondary to previous irradiation. It may correlate with the unusual exudative manifestations observed after external beam radiotherapy.

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

4.4
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