RESUMO
Introduction: It can be challenging to distinguish between choroidal naevi and melanomas in the community setting, particularly without access to ultrasonography (US), required to measure the thickness of melanocytic choroidal tumours. We aimed to determine whether thickness measurement is required for MOLES scoring of melanocytic choroidal tumours. Methods: The dataset of a recent MOLES evaluation was reviewed. Patients were selected for the present study if their MOLES tumour size category was determined by tumour thickness measured with US. The largest basal tumour diameter and tumour thickness were then measured from ultra-widefield fundus images and optical coherence tomography (OCT) images, respectively. Results: The tumour size category was determined by tumour diameter in 203/222 (91.4%) with no influence of tumour thickness. The tumour thickness influenced the MOLES score in 19/222 (8.6%) patients. In 11/19 patients with OCT measurements of tumour thickness, the US measurement exceeded the OCT by more than 25% in 5 patients, more than 50% in 2 patients, and more than 75% in 1 patient. As a result, the revised tumour thickness based on OCT determined the size category in 4/216 (1.8%) patients. The ultra-widefield fundus images measurements increased the diameter score by 1 in 5 patients. As a result, the revised tumour thickness determined the size category in 4/216 (1.8%) patients. If both the revised diameter and thickness scores were considered, the MOLES score reduced in 4 patients. If both the diameter and thickness scores were considered, the MOLES score reduced in 5 and increased in 1. Only 0.94% (2/211) of melanocytic choroidal tumours assessed with MOLES when using Optos ultra-widefield fundus images diameter and OCT to measure tumour diameter and thickness, respectively, required a change in management from a reduction in MOLES score from 1 to 0. Discussion/Conclusion: This study suggests that the MOLES category for size is influenced more by the tumour diameter, if it can be measured accurately, than by the thickness. This study suggests ignoring tumour thickness if this cannot be measured accurately with OCT, unless the tumour has a mushroom shape.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To report on cases of late extraocular relapse of previously resected iris melanoma, without concurrent intraocular recurrence. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 4 patients diagnosed with late subconjunctival relapse of previously resected iris melanoma. RESULTS: Three female patients and 1 male patient underwent iris tumor resection and presented to our service with suspicious conjunctival lesions at a median of 22 years later (mean: 21 years). None showed intraocular relapse. Treatment of the conjunctival tumors included excisional biopsy (n = 4), followed by cryotherapy (n = 3) and/or brachytherapy (n = 3). In all cases, histopathology confirmed malignant melanoma, with no intraepithelial component or associated melanosis. Genetic sequencing (n = 3) showed wild-type BRAF and NRAS in all. GNA11 mutation was found in 1 case. On array-based comparative genomic hybridization (n = 3), gain of 6p was found in 2 cases and gain of 8 in 2. Overall, findings were strongly suggestive of a diagnosis of late extraocular relapse from previously resected iris melanoma. In a median of 2.5 years (mean: 7.7 years) from the subconjunctival relapse, no further episodes of intraocular/extraocular recurrence were recorded, and all patients were free from distant metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing iris melanoma resection are at risk of developing late solitary extraocular relapse even more than 30 years after surgery. In the absence of an intraocular component, diagnosis may be challenging, as tumors mimic a primary conjunctival lesion. Management by excisional biopsy followed by adjuvant therapy was successful, and histopathology and genetic analysis supported a diagnosis of extraocular uveal tumor spread rather than a primary conjunctival tumor.
