Conjunctival extranodal marginal zone B‐cell lymphoma with crystal‐storing histiocytosis

R. Mittal,B. Damato,S. Coupland
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12682
2015-11-01
Acta Ophthalmologica
Abstract:perpendicular to the CNV’s contraction force as it is usually the case in conventional RPE tears. However, in this case, it is located parallel to the axis of CNV’s contraction force, which makes it rather improbable that contraction forces cause the microrip. Secondly, the fact that the microrip is located parallel to the axis of CNV’s contraction force results in lower tensile forces acting on the microrip, which may be the reason that the microrip had not further increased before injection.Nevertheless, microrips supposedly lower the threshold ofRPE resistance and the increase in contraction after anti-VEGF therapy eventually results in the anatomic failure of the RPE. Thirdly, the localization of microrips detectable prior to tear development at the temporal edge of the lesion is identical to the edge of the RPE tear suggesting that microrips may be regarded as a predetermined tearing edge. Therefore, microrips must be regarded as a risk factor for the development of RPE tears similar to other risk factors as discussed above. A microrip should not be regarded as a prestage RPE tear or the beginning of aRPE tear.Muchmore likely,microrips and RPE tears represent two separate entities based on different etiologic mechanisms as postulated by Ie et al. This case shall encourage clinicians to look for microrips, in addition to the previously established RPE tear risk factors, prior to anti-VEGF therapy in patients with svPED and to perform a thorough examination including OCT and FAF after each injection in highrisk patients. If several RPE tear risk factors accumulate or single risk factors significantly grow during the course of anti-VEGF treatment, we suggest to pause injection therapy, to re-evaluate the svPED lesion 1–2 weeks later and to reinject if signs of CNV contraction have declined. Such an adapted regimen may lead to a safer anti-VEGF therapy with regard to RPE tear development in svPED patients at high risk. Notably, not all known risk factors are present in all cases prior to RPE tear development. A future prospective study stratifying the weight of each individual risk factor to quantify the risk of RPE tear development of individual patients seems promising. In conclusion, microrips in OCT and FAF and the angiographic ‘ring sign’, respectively, may be regarded as a potential risk factor for impending RPE tear development in patients under anti-VEGF treatment for svPED.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?