Accuracy between clinical and radiological diagnoses compared to surgical orbital biopsies.
clinical diagnosis
histological diagnosis
orbital biopsy
orbital lesion
radiological diagnosis
Journal
International journal of ophthalmology
ISSN: 2222-3959
Titre abrégé: Int J Ophthalmol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101553860
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
08
12
2022
accepted:
02
03
2023
medline:
20
4
2023
pubmed:
20
4
2023
entrez:
20
04
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess the concordance between diagnosing orbital lesions by clinical examination, orbital imaging, and histological evaluation, in order to help guide future research and clinical practice. A retrospective analysis was undertaken at a large regional tertiary referral centre of all surgical orbital biopsies performed over a 5-year period, from 1 A total of 128 operations involving 111 patients were identified. Overall, sensitivities of 47.7% for clinical and 37.3% for radiological diagnoses were found when compared to the histological gold standard. Vascular lesions that have characteristic clinical and radiological features had the highest sensitivity at 71.4% and 57.1%, respectively. Inflammatory conditions showed the lowest sensitivity in both clinical (30.3%) and radiological (18.2%) diagnoses. The PPV for inflammatory conditions were 47.6% for clinical and 30.0% for radiological diagnoses. Accurate diagnoses are difficult to reach by relying on clinical examination and imaging alone. Surgical orbital biopsy with histological diagnosis should remain the gold standard approach for definitively identifying orbital lesions. Although larger scale prospective studies would help further refine concordance and guide future research avenues.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37077490
doi: 10.18240/ijo.2023.04.16
pii: ijo-16-04-616
pmc: PMC10089915
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
616-622Informations de copyright
International Journal of Ophthalmology Press.
Références
J Indian Med Assoc. 2009 Jun;107(6):403-5
pubmed: 19886379
Int J Oncol. 2020 Feb;56(2):417-429
pubmed: 31939615
Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2021 Nov 17;35(3):174-178
pubmed: 35601859
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Dec 1;25(12):1651-1656
pubmed: 30517649
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Jan;35(1):170-5
pubmed: 23868150
Orbit. 2021 Apr;40(2):133-137
pubmed: 32279603
Eye (Lond). 2018 Aug;32(8):1329-1333
pubmed: 29615781
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014 Oct;95(10):933-44
pubmed: 25195185
J Med Radiat Sci. 2021 Mar;68(1):60-74
pubmed: 32870580
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Apr;190(4):956-65
pubmed: 18356442
Insights Imaging. 2016 Feb;7(1):43-68
pubmed: 26518678
Orbit. 2013 Oct;32(5):304-8
pubmed: 23895509
Eye (Lond). 2015 Sep;29(9):1162-6
pubmed: 26043705
Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2021 Feb 27;34(3):205-208
pubmed: 34085016
Surv Ophthalmol. 2019 Nov - Dec;64(6):741-756
pubmed: 31276737
Radiographics. 2013 Oct;33(6):1739-58
pubmed: 24108560