Intraocular medulloepithelioma: an unusual and challenging entity in paediatric population.

Intraocular medulloepithelioma is a rare, congenital tumour of the non-pigmented ciliary epithelium. It most frequently arises from the ciliary body but can also have its origin from the retina, iris and optic nerve. The age when lesion first appears is typically around 2-10 years. Nearly 50-60% of patients having this lesion may also have secondary features such as cataract and neovascular glaucoma. Those with extrascleral medulloepithelioma are at risk for metastasis. Systemic correlation of the tumour with pleuropulmonary blastoma/DICER1 gene is reported in the literature. Here, we report a case of a 15 years old boy with one year history of right eye proptosis and painful red right eye along with decreased vision for one week. He was assessed and operated for cataract elsewhere three years back. The ophthalmology team managed him for endophthalmitis with intravenous antibiotics, followed by 2 sessions of cryotherapy and finally an enucleation of right eye was performed due to severe pain and no vision in the involved eye. His left eye, general physical examination and systemic evaluation were normal. Histopathology revealed the diagnosis of 'malignant teratoid medulloepithelioma'. Therefore, evaluation of systemic associations for DICER1 gene mutations was performed by the oncology team. For high risk feature of scleral invasion on histopathology, he was treated with chemotherapy. Since the tumour is of rare occurrence; an international expert team with vast research experience in PPB/DICER1 associated tumours was also contacted. He was registered in International PPB/DICER1 registry where a detailed central radiology and pathology review was performed. Genetic counseling and surveillance plan was also suggested by the international registry.

Attitude and practice of patients and doctors towards complementary and alternative medicine.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the attitude towards complementary and alternative medicine among the doctors and patients. METHODS: The study was carried out at Civil Hospital Karachi and Liaquat National University Hospital, Karachi during April to September 2010. Two sets of questionnaires were developed separately for doctors and patients. Each set consisted of queries regarding demographic data of patients and doctors. The questionnaire for the patients contained questions reflecting the general attitude, mode of complimentary and alternative medicine usage, disease referred and the underlined reasons behind pricking the options. The questionnaires for doctors in general laid focus on the personal opinion about the practice not only for their own use, but also related to their concern towards those patients who used complimentary and alternative medicine. Predictive analysis software statistics 18 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of the patients, 237 (59.3%) used complimentary and alternative medicine. Herbal medicine followed by homeopathic medicine were the most commonly used therapies. Fever and cough were the most common diseases for which patients used the options. The preference was mainly based on inter-personal communications, reliance on complimentary and alternative medicine, and financial restriction. Concealing from the doctors was common in patients. Only 62 (34.4%) out of 180 doctors used complimentary and alternative medicine themselves. Refusal by other doctors was because they considered the option ineffective, obsolete and unsatisfactory. About half of the doctors forbade the patients to use such therapies, but 31% (n=73) patients ignored the doctor's advice. CONCLUSION: The use of complimentary and alternative medicine is highly prevalent in our society by patients irrespective of their social class. Preference for such therapies, on the other hand, is quite low among medical doctors as they consider allopathic medicine to be effective.