Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether inactive cases of presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome (POHS) and multifocal choroiditis with panuveitis (MFC) can be differentiated from each other by their appearance on fundus photography and fluorescein angiography. METHODS: Two masked observers classified 50 patients' photographs (27 with fluorescein angiograms) as POHS, MFC, or 'indeterminate.' Twenty-five patients had known POHS and 25 had known MFC. Statistical analysis was performed to assess agreement and interrater reliability. RESULTS: Observer A classified 33 patients and was indeterminate on 17. Of the 33, he was correct on 26 (79% crude accuracy; kappa = 0.560; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.286-0.834). Observer B classified 40 patients and was indeterminate on 10. Of the 40, he was correct on 33 (82% crude accuracy; kappa = 0.650; 95% CI, 0.422-0.878). Both observers ventured a diagnosis on 28 common patients. Of these, they selected the same diagnosis on 26 (93% crude agreement). When the 2 observers' diagnoses were compared and indeterminate patients were factored in, the kappa value was 0.408 (95% CI, 0.215-0.601). When the indeterminate patients are excluded, the kappa agreement increased to 0.825 (95% CI, 0.592-1). When pictures only were available, observer A and observer B kappa values against the gold standard were 0.625 (95% CI, 0.270-0.980) and 0.588 (95% CI, 0.235-0.940), respectively. The pictures-only kappa values for observer A vs observer B were 0.582 (95% CI, 0.316-0.848) with indeterminate patients factored in and 1.0 (95% CI, 1.0-1.0) when indeterminate patients were excluded. Pictures and fluorescein angiogram kappa values were 0.493 (95% CI, 0.076-0.909) for observer A and 0.706 (95% CI, 0.413-0.999) for observer B against the gold standard. For observer A vs observer B, the kappa value was 0.261 (95% CI, -0.002 to 0.524) with indeterminate patients factored in and 0.567 (95% CI, 0.032-1) excluding indeterminate patients. Sensitivity for all cases for observer A was 60% (+/-13%) for POHS and 94% (+/-6%) for MFC. For observer B, the sensitivity for all cases was 70% (+/-10%) for POHS and 95% (+/-5%) for MFC. CONCLUSIONS: Given adequate funduscopic information, the experienced observer can often accurately distinguish between POHS and MFC without the need for ancillary testing. Angiography in addition to fundus photography does not appear to increase diagnostic ability. There appears to be a higher sensitivity for MFC than for POHS

PURPOSE: To evaluate the indication for endoscopic vitreoretinal surgery in proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). METHODS: Chart review of consecutive cases of vitreoretinal surgery for PDR performed by one of the authors (Y.L.F.) over a 2-year period. RESULTS: Endoscopic vitreoretinal surgery was performed in 8 of 41 (19.5%) eyes. The surgical indications were small pupil (3), hyphema (3), pseudophakia with fibrotic posterior capsule (1), and pars plana neovascularization with anterior tractional retinal detachment (6). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic vitreoretinal surgery, by enhancing the visualization of the retroirideal space, is a useful technique in PDR with opaque ocular media and/or neovascularization of the pars plana and ciliary body

PURPOSE: Focal hyperplasia of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) is a common fundus condition that is generally stationary, with little or no tendency to enlarge or spawn neoplasms. The purpose of this report is to describe the unusual clinical features of two similar cases in which a nodular tumor of the RPE was documented to arise from a small focus of hyperplasia of the RPE. METHODS: Clinical and cytopathologic observations of two patients. RESULTS: Both patients were observed for approximately 25 years with an unusual progressive fundus tumor that originally arose from a small, flat, irregular focus of hyperplasia of the RPE. The originally observed pigmented lesion was attributed to toxoplasmosis in one patient and laser treatment for central serous chorioretinopathy in the other. In both patients, the tumor enlarged, invaded through the full-thickness sensory retina, and produced a characteristic retinal perforation with apposition of the mass to the vitreous. In both instances, fine-needle aspiration biopsy showed scant pigmented cells, but a definite diagnosis was not made. However, clinical observations in both patients suggested that these tumors were acquired neoplasms that arose from small foci of hyperplasia of the RPE. CONCLUSION: Focal hyperplasia of the RPE can give rise to unusual invasive tumors that invade and replace the overlying sensory retina. These tumors have unique clinical features that differentiate them from uveal melanoma and other pigmented fundus lesions