Paraneoplastic vitelliform retinopathy associated with cutaneous or uveal melanoma and metastases.

PURPOSE: To report unusual vitelliform fundus findings in three cases of paraneoplastic retinopathy associated with metastasised cutaneous or uveal melanoma and in one case, a unique immunoreactivity response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational case series. The histories of three patients with MAR-like paraneoplastic retinopathy were reviewed. Electroretinography, Goldmann perimetry, fluorescein angiography, and in one case optical coherence tomography, immunohistochemistry and Western blotting were performed. RESULTS: All patients revealed similar paraneoplastic vitelliform retinal abnormalities. Symptoms in two cases differed from the classical MAR syndrome. In one case, western blotting and immunohistochemistry demonstrated antibodies against 120-kDa, a soluble photoreceptor protein. No immunoreactivity to retinal bipolar cells was detected. CONCLUSION: The clinical, electrophysiological, and immunological findings in our patients suggest a melanoma associated paraneoplastic origin, like in MAR syndrome. However contrary to MAR syndrome, this paraneoplastic vitelliform retinopathy exhibits a peculiar fundus picture, consisting of serous macular detachment and nummular vitelliform lesions in the posterior pole. This could be an unusual presentation of MAR or a separate paraneoplastic entity.

Difference in distribution of muscle weakness between myasthenia gravis and the Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis and the Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS) may have a similar distribution of muscle weakness. Deciding on a diagnosis of myasthenia gravis or LEMS on clinical grounds may therefore be difficult. OBJECTIVE: To compare the localisation of initial muscle weakness and the distribution of weakness at the time of maximum severity in patients with myasthenia gravis and LEMS. SUBJECTS: 101 patients with myasthenia gravis and 38 patients with LEMS. RESULTS: In myasthenia gravis, initial weakness involved extraocular muscles in 59%, bulbar muscles in 29%, and limb muscles in 12% of the patients. In LEMS no patient had ocular weakness, 5% had bulbar weakness, and 95% had weakness of the limbs as the first symptom (p < 0.001). At the point of maximum severity, weakness in myasthenia gravis was purely ocular in 25%, oculobulbar in 5%, restricted to the limbs in 2%, and present in both oculobulbar muscles and limbs in 68%. At this point, none of the LEMS patients had weakness restricted to extraocular or bulbar muscles (p = 0.002). The legs were affected in all LEMS patients, whereas in 12 patients with generalised myasthenia gravis limb weakness was restricted to the arms (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: In a patient suspected to have a myasthenic syndrome whose first symptom is ocular weakness, LEMS is virtually excluded. Limb weakness confined to the arms is only found in generalised myasthenia gravis and not in LEMS. Muscle weakness in myasthenia gravis tends to develop in a craniocaudal direction, and in the opposite direction in LEMS.