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....
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |