4.1 Article

Langerhans cell histiocytosis of the orbit

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 578-583

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.5301/ejo.5000244

关键词

Diabetes insipidus; Langerhans cell histiocytosis; Orbit; Vinblastine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The management of Langerhans cell histiocytosis is controversial. This study evaluated our clinical experience and therapeutic results in orbital Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Methods: This is a retrospective, noncomparative interventional case series involving 17 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven orbital Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Response to surgery and chemotherapy and development of diabetes insipidus were the main outcome measures. Results: Thirteen (76.5%) of the patients were male and the mean age at diagnosis was 10.7 years (range 2-39 years). The most frequent presenting sign was proptosis (8 patients) and upper eyelid edema (4 patients). Pain was present in 5 cases and periocular redness in 6. No patient reported a history of trauma. The frontal bone was involved in 16 patients followed by the zygomatic in 9 cases. Five patients also had lesions in the calvarium, femur, facial, temporal, and parietal bones. No patients had systemic disease. Ten patients were managed with vinblastine (0.2 mg/kg, 6-12 months) chemotherapy because of major residual tumor burden (5 cases) and multi-bone involvement (5 cases). Four patients were observed following macroscopically complete tumor removal. Three patients with limited anterior orbital soft tissue tumors and single bone involvement received systemic corticosteroids (40 mg/m(2)/d, 6-10 weeks). No patients developed diabetes insipidus after a median follow-up of 46 months. Conclusions: Macroscopically complete excision of the unifocal tumors may not necessitate any further treatment. Vinblastine chemotherapy following incomplete tumor removal and in patients with multifocal bone disease resulted in recurrence-free survival at 3 years in 90% of patients.

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

4.1
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