Comparison between wide-field digital imaging system and the red reflex test for universal newborn eye screening in Brazil.

PURPOSE: To compare neonatal eye screening using the red reflex test (RRT) versus the wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) system. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Newborns (n = 380, 760 eyes) in the Maternity Ward of Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo hospital from May to July 2014 underwent RRT by a paediatrician and WFDI performed by the authors. Wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) images were analysed by the authors. Validity of the paediatrician's RRT was assessed by unweighted kappa [κ] statistic, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: While WFDI showed abnormalities in 130 eyes (17.1%), RRT was only abnormal in 13 eyes (1.7%). Wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) detected treatable retina pathology that RRT missed including hyphema, CMV retinitis, FEVR and a vitreous haemorrhage. The sensitivity of the paediatrician's RRT to detect abnormalities was poor at 0.77% (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.02%-4.21%) with a PPV of only 7.69% (95% CI, 1.08%-38.85%). Overall, there was no agreement between screening modalities (κ = -0.02, 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.01). The number needed to screen to detect ocular abnormalities using WFDI was 5.9 newborns and to detect treatable abnormalities was 76 newborns. CONCLUSION: While RRT detects gross abnormalities that preclude visualization of the retina (i.e. media opacities and very large tumours), only WFDI consistently detects subtle treatable retina and optic nerve pathology. With a higher sensitivity than the current gold standard, universal WFDI allows for early detection and management of potentially blinding ophthalmic disease missed by RRT.

Conjunctival follicular lymphoma after treatment for invasive squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: The authors describe the case of a 79-year-old Caucasian woman who presented an ocular adnexal lesion as the first clinical manifestation of a systemic follicular lymphoma, highlighting the clinicopathological features of this rare entity and its potential to be misdiagnosed as marginal zone lymphoma of the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue. METHODS: Conjunctival impression cytology was performed for a rapid initial diagnosis of lymphoma, and subsequent histopathological and immunohistochemical studies were carried out for its confirmation and to identify the best therapeutic regimen. RESULTS: After the initial presentation and diagnosis, she was submitted to complete clinical evaluation; confluent retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy was detected through abdominal computed tomography, characterizing clinical stage III. CONCLUSION: Awareness of this lymphoma is important when making a diagnosis of ocular adnexal lymphoid neoplasms for its appropriate evaluation and management.