Consultations in Eye Pathology: Experience at the Ophthalmology Specialty Hospital.

CONTEXT.­: Ophthalmic pathology is a discipline that relies heavily on a knowledge of clinical ophthalmology. The diagnosis of ocular and periocular lesions can be challenging because some lesions and diseases are unique to this region, whereas others may demonstrate site-specific differences from nonocular counterparts. Because of these challenges, ocular and periocular biopsies are frequently referred to specialized ophthalmic pathology centers for second opinion diagnoses. OBJECTIVE.­: To analyze the referral patterns, diagnostic challenges, and diagnostic discrepancies for second opinion referrals at a dedicated ophthalmic pathology laboratory with an emphasis on lesions of special interest in ophthalmic pathology. DATA SOURCES.­: Data sources included the pathology records of all slides and blocks received in consultation at the referral eye pathology center between December 1, 2015, and December 1, 2022, the personal experience of senior authors, and published peer-reviewed literature. CONCLUSIONS.­: Corneal, intraocular, and conjunctival biopsies are the most common types of cases received in consultation without the referring pathologist's diagnosis, likely reflecting diagnostic challenges. Degenerative intraocular processes occasionally raise concern for a neoplasm. Conjunctival melanocytic lesions are the most common conjunctival biopsies referred for second opinion diagnosis and require careful tissue sampling and clinical-pathologic correlation. Careful clinical-pathologic correlation, a high level of suspicion, and adequate sampling also are required for the accurate diagnosis of periocular sebaceous carcinoma. The diagnostic discrepancies involving uveal, retinal, conjunctival, eyelid, and temporal artery biopsies are most likely to adversely influence patient management and possible outcome. Such specimens may benefit from referral to specialized ophthalmic pathology laboratories.

Likelihood of Germline Mutation With Solitary Unilateral Retinoblastoma Based on Patient Age at Presentation: Analysis of 482 Consecutive Patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the likelihood of germline retinoblastoma in patients presenting with solitary unilateral retinoblastoma, based on age at presentation. METHODS: This retrospective case series of 482 consecutive patients presenting with solitary unilateral retinoblastoma analyzed the likelihood of germline retinoblastoma, defined as family history of retinoblastoma, germline retinoblastoma mutation documented on genetic testing, and/or development of bilateral disease and/or additional new tumors. This analysis was based on age at presentation (0 to 12 months vs older than 12 to 24 months vs older than 24 to 36 months vs older than 36 months) and a sub-study was conducted on infant age at presentation (0 to 3 months vs older than 3 to 6 months vs older than 6 to 9 months vs older than 9 to 12 months). RESULTS: Of the overall group (482 consecutive patients) with solitary unilateral retinoblastoma, there were significantly different findings in the youngest age group (0 to 12 months old) with greater family history of retinoblastoma (10% vs 2% vs 1% vs 2%, P = .004), smaller median basal diameter (18.0 vs 20.0 vs 20.0 vs 20.0 mm, P = .014), smaller median tumor thickness (8.7 vs 10.0 vs 11.5 vs 10.0 mm, P = .002), greater macular tumor location (33% vs 16% vs 10% vs 8%, P < .001), and greatest likelihood of germline mutation (29% vs 17% vs 8% vs 9%, P = .001). By comparison, patients 1 year and younger (vs older than 1 year) demonstrated a 2.96 odds ratio (OR) (P = .001) for likelihood of germline retinoblastoma. For those classified as infants (1 year and younger) (n = 132 consecutive patients), the youngest patients (0 to 3 months old) demonstrated the greatest likelihood for germline mutation (61% vs 20% vs 24% vs 22%, P = .009) and greatest odds ratio (5.52, P = .002) compared to patients older than 3 to 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The youngest patients with solitary unilateral retinoblastoma showed the greatest likelihood of germline disease when evaluating all patients (1 year and younger vs older than 1 year of age) (OR = 2.96) and the substudy of infants (3 years and younger vs older than 3 to 12 months old) (OR = 5.52). [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2021;58(6):355-364.].

Conditional analysis on new tumor formation with solitary unilateral retinoblastoma in 482 consecutive patients.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to understand dynamic risk (conditional analysis based on patient age) for new tumor development in patients with solitary unilateral retinoblastoma. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis. RESULTS: Of 482 patients with solitary unilateral retinoblastoma, 55 new tumors developed in 20 patients (4%). Comparison (new tumor vs. no new tumor development) revealed those with new tumor demonstrated younger mean age at presentation (10 vs. 36 months, P < 0.001), greater likelihood of family history of retinoblastoma (35% vs. 3%, P < 0.001), and greater probability of primary tumor location in the macula (50% vs. 15%, P = 0.003). Conditional risk for new tumors (at age 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months) declined for those who presented at 0-3 months old (25%, 15%, 15%, 8%, and 0%), >3-6 months old (17%, 14%, 6%, 6%, and 0%), >6-9 months old (not applicable [na], 6%, 6%, 0%, and 0%), and >9-12 months (na, na, 3%, 3%, and 0%). Younger patients showed greater development of bilateral tumors (P < 0.001). Of patients with new tumors, those that occurred within 1 year from presentation were located in the preequatorial region in 46%, whereas those that occurred more than 1 year from presentation were preequatorial in 78%. Patients ≤24 months at initial presentation demonstrated all new tumors by 24 months of age. Older patients (>24 months at presentation) showed new tumors up to 56 months of age. CONCLUSION: Children (≤24 months) with solitary unilateral retinoblastoma showed decreasing risk for new tumors up to 24 months of life. Later onset of new tumor was more likely located in preequatorial region.

Evaluating patient preparedness for cataract surgery and satisfaction with preoperative care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preoperative preparedness and patient satisfaction after implementation of the Cataract Screening Preprocedural Questionnaire (CSPQ) at Hamilton Regional Eye Institute. DESIGN: Single-centred, prospective, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS: One-hundred fifty-one adult patients undergoing elective cataract surgery completed the CSPQ questionnaire. Based on the responses, patients were triaged to the preoperative anaesthesia clinic or booked directly for surgery. Outcome measures included anxiety level, delays or cancellations in surgery, preoperative blood pressure, glucose levels, and satisfaction with the quality of preoperative instructions provided. Results were compared between patients who attended and those who bypassed the preoperative anaesthesia clinic. RESULTS: Of the study population, 87 patients were female (57.6%) and the mean age was 72.0 ± 10.5 years. Only 11 patients (7.43%) were referred for preoperative consultation. Patients reported receiving preoperative instructions via handouts (94%) and verbally in combination with handouts (59.33%). Patients felt that adequate information was provided regarding preoperative medications (96.69%), eye drops (99.34%), fasting guidelines (98.68%), arrival time (99.34%), and instructions for accompaniment/drivers postoperatively (100%). All patients were compliant with the fasting guidelines. Patient satisfaction with the information received regarding cataract surgery and anaesthesia were 4.39 ± 0.88 and 3.80 ± 0.95, respectively. There was no difference in the anxiety level between patients who attended and those who bypassed the preoperative clinic (4.09 ± 2.92 and 5.18 ± 2.57, p = 0.14). There were no cancellations, delays, or immediate postoperative systemic complications. CONCLUSIONS: The CSPQ model can be effectively used to streamline the preoperative preparation of patients for cataract surgery while maintaining a high degree of patient satisfaction with the perioperative experience.