Comparison of the diagnostic value of MR imaging and ophthalmoscopy for the staging of retinoblastoma
- Aman KhuranaAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University
- , Christina A. EisenhutAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Technical University of Munich
- , Wenshuai WanAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University
- , Katayoon B. EbrahimiAffiliated withDepartment of Ocular Oncology, Johns Hopkins University
- , Chirag PatelAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, University of California Davis
- , Joan M. O’BrienAffiliated withDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania
- , Kristen YeomAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University
- , Heike E. Daldrup-LinkAffiliated withDepartment of Radiology, Stanford UniversityDepartment of Radiology, Pediatric Radiology Section, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Stanford University Email author
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
To compare the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and ophthalmoscopy for staging of retinoblastoma.
MR and ophthalmoscopic images of 36 patients who underwent enucleation were evaluated retrospectively following institutional review board approval. Histopathology being the standard of reference, the sensitivity and specificity of both diagnostic modalities were compared regarding growth pattern, iris neoangiogenesis, retinal detachment, vitreous seeds and optic nerve invasion. Data were analysed via McNemar’s test.
Both investigations showed no significant difference in accuracy for the detection of different tumour growth patterns (P = 0.80). Vitreous seeding detection was superior by ophthalmoscopy (P < 0.001). For prelaminar optic nerve invasion, MR imaging showed similar sensitivity as ophthalmoscopy but increased specificity of 40 % (CI 0.12–0.74) vs. 20 % (0.03–0.56). MR detected optic nerve involvement past the lamina cribrosa with a sensitivity of 80 % (0.28–0.99) and a specificity of 74 % (0.55–0.88). The absence of optic nerve enhancement excluded histopathological infiltration, but the presence of optic nerve enhancement included a high number of false positives (22–24 %).
Ophthalmoscopy remains the method of choice for determining extent within the globe while MR imaging is useful for evaluating extraocular tumour extension. Thus, both have their own strengths and contribute uniquely to the staging of retinoblastoma.
• Ophthalmoscopy: method of choice for determining extent of retinoblastoma within the globe.
• MR imaging provides optimal evaluation of extrascleral and extraocular tumour extension.
• Positive enhancement of the optic nerve on MRI does not necessarily indicate involvement.
KeywordsRetinoblastoma Retinoblastoma staging Ophthalmoscopy MR imaging Sensitivity and specificity
- Comparison of the diagnostic value of MR imaging and ophthalmoscopy for the staging of retinoblastoma
Volume 23, Issue 5 , pp 1271-1280
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Retinoblastoma staging
- MR imaging
- Sensitivity and specificity
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- 2. Department of Radiology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
- 3. Department of Ocular Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
- 4. Department of Radiology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA
- 5. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- 6. Department of Radiology, Pediatric Radiology Section, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA