Prevalence and Risk Factors of Blindness Among Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma Patients in the United States: An IRIS Registry Analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence and risk factors of blindness among patients newly diagnosed with primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG) in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Eligible patients from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry had newly diagnosed PACG, defined as: 1) observable during a 24-month lookback period from index date of PACG diagnosis; 2) no history of eye drops, laser, or cataract surgery unless preceded by a diagnosis of anatomical narrow angle (ANA); and 3) no history of glaucoma surgery. Logistic regression models were developed to identify risk factors for any (one or both eyes) or bilateral (both eyes) blindness (visual acuity ≤20/200) at first diagnosis of PACG. RESULTS: Among 43,901 eligible patients, overall prevalence of any and bilateral blindness were 11.5% and 1.8%, respectively. Black and Hispanic patients were at higher risk of any (odds ratios [ORs] 1.42 and 1.21, respectively; P < .001) and bilateral (ORs 2.04 and 1.53, respectively; P < .001) blindness compared with non-Hispanic White patients adjusted for ocular comorbidities. Age <50 or >80 years, male sex, Medicaid or Medicare insurance product, and Southern or Western practice region also conferred a higher risk of blindness (OR > 1.28; P ≤ .01). CONCLUSIONS: Blindness affects 1 of 9 patients with newly diagnosed PACG in the IRIS Registry. Black and Hispanic patients and Medicaid and Medicare recipients are at significantly higher risk. These findings highlight the severe ocular morbidity among patients with PACG and the need for improved disease awareness and detection methods.

Tumour size criteria for Group D and E eyes in the International Classification System for Retinoblastoma: effects on rates of globe salvage and high-risk histopathologic features.

PURPOSE: To determine the significance of large tumour size as a criteria for classifying advanced intraocular retinoblastoma, analysing rates of globe survival and high-risk (HE) histopathologic features. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 212 eyes diagnosed with Group D (111 eyes) or Group E (101 eyes) retinoblastoma in at least one eye from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2016 using the Los Angeles (LA) Classification System (no tumour size criteria for Group E). The 111 Group D tumours were then reclassified to Group E using 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 mm tumour size criteria, as determined by ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging dimensions. RESULTS: For eyes in the original LA classification, 66.7% of Group D and 10.5% of Group E eyes undergoing globe preservation therapy avoided enucleation or radiotherapy (p < 0.0001; median follow-up of 33.0 months). In the LA classification, 8.5% of Group D and 26.3% of Group E enucleated globes had HE histopathologic features (p = 0.0065). When Group D eyes with tumours meeting the size criteria were reclassified to Group E, 65.7-74.4% of Group D and 16.1-36.7% of Group E eyes avoided enucleation or radiotherapy. Applying the tumour size criteria, 0-10.9% of Group D and 20.7-23.8% of Group E eyes had HE histopathologic features. CONCLUSION: Our retrospective analysis suggests that a large tumour size criteria for Group E retinoblastoma have no clinical basis, given that the LA classification system provided the greatest separation in globe salvage rates between Group D and E eyes. The LA classification system was also able to show a statistically significant difference in the rates of HE histopathologic features between Group D and E eyes. To avoid discrepancies in the literature, we recommend that centres use one uniform system for classifying advanced intraocular retinoblastoma.

Trends in Radiation Practices for Female Ocular Oncologists in North America: A Collaborative Study of the International Society of Ocular Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the known radiation exposure, attitudes, and consequent risk modifications among female ocular oncologists in North America who routinely administer radioactive plaque brachytherapy treatment and are members of the International Society of Ocular Oncology. METHODS: Nineteen female ocular oncologists completed an anonymous 17-question radiation exposure survey. RESULTS: Eleven of the participants chose to routinely wear lead protection during surgery; 8 did not. Fifteen of 19 participants reported using an unloaded "nonactive" template to prepare for plaque implantation. During pregnancy, 11 of 13 participants continued to perform plaque brachytherapy. Eight of these 11 undertook measures to decrease radiation exposure self-reported as lead wear and other. The average reported anxiety regarding fertility was 2.1 (SD, 2.2) on a scale from 1 to 10. CONCLUSION: This study corroborates prior literature that surgeons' exposure to radiation during plaque brachytherapy is minimal. Nonetheless, there remains some anxiety regarding exposure risk to women, due to potential effects on fertility and fetal health. We found variability in exposure monitoring, required training, and precautions during pregnancy amongst this group of surgeons. Improved education and clearer pregnancy guidelines may equip female ocular oncologists with optimal knowledge regarding risk of radiation exposure.