Assessment of Anterior Segment Tumors with Ultrasound Biomicroscopy versus Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography in 200 Cases
Assessment of Anterior Segment Tumors with Ultrasound Biomicroscopy versus Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography in 200 Cases
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.11.011
复制
发表时间：
2011-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
13.7
通讯作者：
Shields, Jerry A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bianciotto, Carlos;Shields, Carol L.;Shields, Jerry A.
目的：比较超声生物显微镜(UBM)和眼前段光学相干断层扫描(AS-OCT)对眼前节肿瘤的诊断价值。设计：回顾性非介入病例系列。研究对象：200例患者。方法：回顾UBM和AS-OCT对眼前段肿瘤的诊断。主要观察指标：肿瘤表面和内部显示的比较。结果：200眼眼前段肿瘤累及虹膜间质96眼(48%)，睫状体14眼(7%)，虹膜睫状体联合病变32眼(16%)。虹膜色素上皮44例(22%)，结膜6例(3%)，巩膜4例(2%)，其他6例(1%)。其中色素痣75眼(38%)，黑色素瘤47眼(24%)，囊性病变48眼(24%)，上皮瘤(腺瘤)5眼(3%)，转移瘤、黑素细胞增多症和黑素细胞瘤各4眼(2%)，其他各1%。图像分析(UBM vs AS-OCT)显示所有肿瘤边缘(189[95%]vs 80[40%])、肿瘤后方阴影(9[5%]vs 144[72%])以及较高的整体图像质量(159[80%]vs 136[68%])。比较更好的图像分辨率(UBM和AS-OCT)，UBM提供了更好的整体肿瘤可视化(138[69%]比62[31%])和更好的后缘分辨率(147[74%]比53[27%])，而AS-OCT提供了更好的前缘分辨率(40[20%]比160[80%])，以及更好的眼前节解剖的整体分辨率(41[21%]比159[80%])。对于色素性肿瘤(n=162；107[66%]vs 55[34%])和非色素性肿瘤(n=38；23[61%]vs 15[39%])，UBM的分辨率较好。在定位方面，每种技术的虹膜肿瘤分辨率相似(49[52%]vs45[48%])。结论：对于前段肿瘤，UBM提供了更好的后缘可视化，并提供了比AS-OCT更好的整体图像。
Purpose: To compare ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) versus anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) for imaging of tumors of the anterior segment of the eye.Design: Retrospective, noninterventional case series.Participants: We included 200 patients.Methods: Review of medical records of patients who underwent both UBM and AS-OCT for evaluation of anterior segment tumors.Main Outcome Measures: Comparison of tumor surface and internal visualization.Results: There were 200 eyes with anterior segment tumors involving the iris stroma in 96 (48%), ciliary body in 14 (7%), combined iris and ciliary body in 32 (16%), iris pigment epithelium (IPE) in 44 (22%), conjunctiva in 6 (3%), sclera in 4 (2%), and others in 6 (1% each). The diagnoses included nevus in 75 eyes (38%), melanoma in 47 (24%), cyst in 48 (24%), epithelioma (adenoma) in 5 (3%), metastasis, melanocytosis and melanocytoma in 4 eyes each (2%), and others (1% each). Image analysis (UBM vs AS-OCT) revealed adequate visualization of all tumor margins (189 [95%] vs 80 [40%]), posterior tumor shadowing (9 [5%] vs 144 [72%]), and high overall image quality (159 [80%] vs 136 [68%]). Comparison for better image resolution (UBM vs AS-OCT) disclosed UBM provided better overall tumor visualization (138 [69%] vs 62 [31%]) and better resolution of the posterior margin (147 [74%] vs 53 [27%]), whereas AS-OCT provided better resolution of the anterior margin (40 [20%] vs 160 [80%]) as well as better overall resolution of anterior segment anatomy (41 [21%] vs 159 [80%]). Better resolution was found with UBM for pigmented tumors (n = 162; 107 [66%] vs 55 [34%]) as well as for nonpigmented tumors (n = 38; 23 [61%] vs 15 [39%]). Regarding location, iris tumor resolution was similar with each technique (49 [52%] vs 45 [48%]).Conclusions: For anterior segment tumors, UBM offers better visualization of the posterior margin and provides overall better images for entire tumor configuration compared with AS-OCT.