PRIMARY TUMOURS OF IRIS
PRIMARY TUMOURS OF IRIS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bjo.48.12.650
复制
发表时间：
1964-01-01
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
ASHTON, N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
ASHTON, N
原发性虹膜肿瘤最近引起了广泛的关注，在最近的文献中有许多有趣的研究。杜克和邓恩（1958）对43例虹膜肿瘤进行了病理学和随访检查;罗恩斯和齐默尔曼（1958）对38例仅行虹膜切除术的黑色素瘤或潜在色素瘤进行了研究;克莱斯比（1958）对21例虹膜恶性黑色素瘤进行了随访; Reese和克莱斯比（1959）分析了157例恶性黑色素瘤的治疗和预后，詹森（1963）报告了10例此类病例的小系列。本文报道了我科原发性虹膜肿瘤病例的组织学和随访研究，其中严格遵循了上述工作人员的分析方法，以便提供尽可能接近可比的数据。在维也纳举行的欧洲眼科学会会议上报告了一些与恶性黑色素瘤有关的发现（Ashton和Wybar，1964）。材料和方法本研究基于对145例原发性虹膜肿瘤的分析。继发性肿瘤，包括睫状体受累导致无法明确诊断原发于虹膜的肿瘤，均排除在研究之外。所有病例均来自伦敦眼科研究所病理科1945年至1962年的记录。切片不再可用的病例被拒绝，其余病例进行组织学分类;从最初将标本送到该部门的病理学家和眼科医生处获得随访信息。
PRIMARY tumours of the iris have lately excited much attention and there are a number of interesting studies in the recent literature. Duke and Dunn (1958) carried out a pathological and follow-up examination of 43 iris tumours; Rones and Zimmerman (1958) studied a selected group of 38 melanotic, or potentially pigmented, neoplasms treated by iridectomy only; Cleasby (1958) followed up 21 cases of malignant melanomata of the iris; Reese and Cleasby (1959) analysed a series of 157 cases of malignant melanomata with special regard to treatment and prognosis, and Jensen (1963) reported upon a small series of ten such cases. A histological and follow-up study of cases ofprimary tumour of the iris from this Department is now reported, in which the analytical methods of the above workers have beenclosely followed in order to provide data as nearly comparable as possible. Some of the findings dealingwithmalignant melanomatawere reported at the meeting of the European Ophthalmological Society in Vienna (Ashton and Wybar, 1964).Material and Methods The present study is based on the analysis of 145 primary tumours of the iris. Secondary tumours, including those where involvement of the ciliary body prevented a confident diagnosis of a primary origin in the iris, were excluded from the study. All cases were drawn from the records of the Department of Pathology, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, between the years 1945 and 1962. Cases where the slides were no longer available were rejected and the remainder were categorized histologically; follow-up informationwas obtained from the pathologists and ophthalmologists who had originally sent the specimens to thedepartment.