Cargando…

Evaluation of iris and iridociliary body lesions with anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound B-scan

AIMS: To compare anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) with ultrasound B-scan (USB) in evaluating iris and iridociliary body lesions. METHODS: Image features and resolution comparison between AS-OCT and USB in 126 patients (126 eyes) presenting with iris or iridociliary body lesion....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hau, Scott C, Papastefanou, Vasilios, Shah, Shima, Sagoo, Mandeep S, Restori, Marie, Cohen, Victoria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25091953
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305218
_version_ 1782351302844481536
author Hau, Scott C
Papastefanou, Vasilios
Shah, Shima
Sagoo, Mandeep S
Restori, Marie
Cohen, Victoria
author_facet Hau, Scott C
Papastefanou, Vasilios
Shah, Shima
Sagoo, Mandeep S
Restori, Marie
Cohen, Victoria
author_sort Hau, Scott C
collection PubMed
description AIMS: To compare anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) with ultrasound B-scan (USB) in evaluating iris and iridociliary body lesions. METHODS: Image features and resolution comparison between AS-OCT and USB in 126 patients (126 eyes) presenting with iris or iridociliary body lesion. Bland–Altman plots were generated to assess the level of agreement between the two techniques. RESULTS: The three most common diagnoses were iris naevi (62 (49.2%)), iris pigment epithelial cysts (23 (18.3%)) and iris melanoma (11 (8.7%)). Image feature comparison for USB was better than AS-OCT in visualising all tumour margins (81 (64.3%) vs 59 (46.8%)), posterior tumour margin (54 (42.9%) vs 16 (12.7%)) and producing less posterior shadowing (121 (96%) vs 43 (34.1%)). Image resolution comparison revealed USB to be slightly better for resolving the overall tumour (45 (35.7%) vs 43 (34.1%)) and posterior tumour surface (70 (55.6%) vs 32 (25.4%)) but AS-OCT was better for resolving the anterior (62 (49.2%) vs 4 (3.2%)) and lateral tumour surface (62 (49.2%) vs 31 (24.6%)). Comparing the three most common diagnoses, USB was better for visualising iris pigment epithelial cysts (12 (52.2%) vs 2 (8.7%)) and iris melanoma (7 (63.6%) vs 1 (9.1%)) but AS-OCT was better (28 (45.2%) vs 15 (24.2%)) for visualising iris naevi. Bland–Altman plots showed good agreement between the two techniques for lesions smaller than 3 mm in base and 2 mm in elevation. CONCLUSIONS: AS-OCT is superior to USB for imaging small lesions pertaining to the anterior iris but USB is better for imaging larger iris lesions with posterior or ciliary body extension.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4283679
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42836792015-01-08 Evaluation of iris and iridociliary body lesions with anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound B-scan Hau, Scott C Papastefanou, Vasilios Shah, Shima Sagoo, Mandeep S Restori, Marie Cohen, Victoria Br J Ophthalmol Clinical Science AIMS: To compare anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) with ultrasound B-scan (USB) in evaluating iris and iridociliary body lesions. METHODS: Image features and resolution comparison between AS-OCT and USB in 126 patients (126 eyes) presenting with iris or iridociliary body lesion. Bland–Altman plots were generated to assess the level of agreement between the two techniques. RESULTS: The three most common diagnoses were iris naevi (62 (49.2%)), iris pigment epithelial cysts (23 (18.3%)) and iris melanoma (11 (8.7%)). Image feature comparison for USB was better than AS-OCT in visualising all tumour margins (81 (64.3%) vs 59 (46.8%)), posterior tumour margin (54 (42.9%) vs 16 (12.7%)) and producing less posterior shadowing (121 (96%) vs 43 (34.1%)). Image resolution comparison revealed USB to be slightly better for resolving the overall tumour (45 (35.7%) vs 43 (34.1%)) and posterior tumour surface (70 (55.6%) vs 32 (25.4%)) but AS-OCT was better for resolving the anterior (62 (49.2%) vs 4 (3.2%)) and lateral tumour surface (62 (49.2%) vs 31 (24.6%)). Comparing the three most common diagnoses, USB was better for visualising iris pigment epithelial cysts (12 (52.2%) vs 2 (8.7%)) and iris melanoma (7 (63.6%) vs 1 (9.1%)) but AS-OCT was better (28 (45.2%) vs 15 (24.2%)) for visualising iris naevi. Bland–Altman plots showed good agreement between the two techniques for lesions smaller than 3 mm in base and 2 mm in elevation. CONCLUSIONS: AS-OCT is superior to USB for imaging small lesions pertaining to the anterior iris but USB is better for imaging larger iris lesions with posterior or ciliary body extension. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-01 2014-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4283679/ /pubmed/25091953 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305218 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Clinical Science
Hau, Scott C
Papastefanou, Vasilios
Shah, Shima
Sagoo, Mandeep S
Restori, Marie
Cohen, Victoria
Evaluation of iris and iridociliary body lesions with anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound B-scan
title Evaluation of iris and iridociliary body lesions with anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound B-scan
title_full Evaluation of iris and iridociliary body lesions with anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound B-scan
title_fullStr Evaluation of iris and iridociliary body lesions with anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound B-scan
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of iris and iridociliary body lesions with anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound B-scan
title_short Evaluation of iris and iridociliary body lesions with anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound B-scan
title_sort evaluation of iris and iridociliary body lesions with anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound b-scan
topic Clinical Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25091953
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305218
work_keys_str_mv AT hauscottc evaluationofirisandiridociliarybodylesionswithanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyversusultrasoundbscan
AT papastefanouvasilios evaluationofirisandiridociliarybodylesionswithanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyversusultrasoundbscan
AT shahshima evaluationofirisandiridociliarybodylesionswithanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyversusultrasoundbscan
AT sagoomandeeps evaluationofirisandiridociliarybodylesionswithanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyversusultrasoundbscan
AT restorimarie evaluationofirisandiridociliarybodylesionswithanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyversusultrasoundbscan
AT cohenvictoria evaluationofirisandiridociliarybodylesionswithanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyversusultrasoundbscan