Ocular Oncology and Pathology
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
Buy
FullText & PDF
Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more
CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *
Select
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more
Rent via DeepDyve
Unlimited fulltext viewing of this article
Organize, annotate and mark up articles
Printing and downloading restrictions apply
Start free trial
Subscribe
Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more
Subcription rates
Select
* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.
Article / Publication Details
Abstract
Introduction: It can be challenging to distinguish between choroidal naevi and melanomas in the community setting, particularly without access to ultrasonography, required to measure the thickness of melanocytic choroidal tumours. We aimed to determine whether thickness measurement is required for MOLES scoring of melanocytic choroidal tumours.
Methods: The dataset of a recent MOLES evaluation was reviewed. Patients were selected for the present study if their MOLES tumour size category was determined by tumour thickness measured with ultrasonography (US). The largest basal tumour diameter and tumour thickness were then measured from ultra-widefield fundus images and optical coherence tomography (OCT) images, respectively.
Results: The tumour size category was determined by tumour diameter in 203/222 (91.4%) with no influence of tumour thickness. The tumour thickness influenced the MOLES score in 19/222 (8.6%) patients. In 11/19 patients with OCT measurements of tumour thickness, the US measurement exceeded the OCT by more than 25% in 5 patients, more than 50% in 2 patients and more than 75% in 1 patient. As a result, the revised tumour thickness based on OCT determined the size category in 4/216 (1.8%) patients. The Optos measurements increased the diameter score by 1 in 5 patients. As a result, the revised tumour thickness determined the size category in 4/216 (1.8%) patients. If both the revised diameter and thickness scores were considered, the MOLES score reduced in 4 patients. If both the diameter and thickness scores were considered, the MOLES score reduced in 5 and increased in 1. Only 0.94% (2/211) of melanocytic choroidal tumours assessed with MOLES when using Optos ultra-widefield fundus images diameter and OCT to measure tumour diameter and thickness, respectively, required a change in management from a reduction in MOLES score from 1 to 0.
Discussion/Conclusion: This study suggests that the MOLES category for size is influenced more by the tumour diameter, if it can be measured accurately, than by the thickness. This study suggests ignoring tumour thickness if this cannot be measured accurately with OCT, unless the tumour has a mushroom shape.
S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Comments (0)