You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Oncology
Adenomas of the ciliary body epithelium: clinics, histopathology and management
  1. Yue Zheng1,2,
  2. Xiang Gu1,2,
  3. Yiran Yao1,2,
  4. Hui Pan1,2,
  5. Renbing Jia1,2,
  6. Xiaofang Xu1,2,
  7. Ai Zhuang1,2
  1. 1 Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Affiliated Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China
  2. 2 Shanghai Key Laboratory of Orbital Diseases and Ocular Oncology, Shanghai, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ai Zhuang, Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Affiliated Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China; aizh9h{at}163.com; Dr Xiaofang Xu, Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Affiliated Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China; xuxu0139{at}hotmail.com; Dr Renbing Jia, Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Affiliated Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China; renbingjia{at}sjtu.edu.cn

Abstract

Aims Adenomas of the ciliary body epithelium, including adenoma of the pigmented ciliary body epithelium (APCE) and adenoma of the non-pigmented ciliary body epithelium (ANPCE), are extremely rare, and most knowledge about them comes from sporadic case reports. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive understanding of adenomas of the ciliary body epithelium and to identify the similarities and differences between APCE and ANPCE.

Methods This study was a retrospective case series comprising data from 41 patients obtained from retrieved publications and five cases diagnosed at the Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital. The clinicopathological features, treatment and prognosis of APCE and ANPCE were compared using the non-parametric rank sum test, t-test and the χ2 test.

Results The clinical and histopathological features and treatment were analogous between APCE (n=23) and ANPCE (n=23). The overall visual prognosis associated with the two tumours was good, with 63% of the patients having stable or improved vision after treatment. Enucleation was the primary cause of eventual vision loss (three in APCE vs two in ANPCE, p=0.001). Notably, iris invasion was commonly observed in patients with APCE (six in APCE vs zero in ANPCE, p=0.014), and iris invasion was associated with decreased vision eventually (p=0.003). Tumour size was irrelevant to the vision outcome (p=0.65). Metastasis or recurrence did not occur in any of the patients.

Conclusion In most cases, the clinicopathological features of ANPCE and APCE were similar. Iris invasion was commonly observed in patients with APCE, which was associated with poor visual prognosis.

  • ciliary body
  • pathology
  • prognosis
  • treatment other

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available on reasonable request. The datasets that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2023-323845

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available on reasonable request. The datasets that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • YZ, XG and YY are joint first authors.

    • YZ, XG and YY contributed equally.

    • Contributors AZ designed the study. XX and RJ provided the data of patients. YZ, XG and YY collected, analysed and interpreted the data. HP and YY performed the literature search. YZ wrote the initial draft. AZ and XG revised the manuscript. AZ, XX, and RJ supervised the study. AZ was the guarantor. All authors provided a final review and approved the manuscript before submission.

    • Funding The work was supported by the Cross-disciplinary Research Fund of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (JYJC202210 and YG2023QNB15), Shanghai Science and Technology Commission Research Grant (20DZ2270800, 23ZR1438400 and 23YF1422400), Shanghai Key Clinical Specialty, Shanghai Health Commission (2022ZZ01003), the Project of Biobank of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (YBKA201907 and YBKA202208) and Innovative Research Team of High-Level Local Universities in Shanghai (SHSMUZDCX20210900 and SHSMU-ZDCX20210902).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

    Linked Articles

    • Highlights from this issue
      At a glance
      Frank Larkin
      British Journal of Ophthalmology 2024; 108 i-ii Published Online First: 21 May 2024. doi: 10.1136/bjo-2024-325751