John P Kelly1, Avery H Weiss. 1. Corresponding Author: Avery H. Weiss, MD, Division of Ophthalmology, OA.9.220, Seattle Children's Hospital, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105. avery.weiss@seattlechildrens.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We wanted to determine the sensitivity and specificity of serial changes in visual acuity and visual evoked potentials (VEPs) to detect radiological progression of tumor volume in children with optic pathway gliomas. METHODS: From a retrospective review of a cohort of 69 patients, 54 patients met inclusion criteria (31 with primary chemotherapy, 4 with primary radiotherapy, and 19 with stable tumor volume and no treatment). Age at presentation ranged from 0.3 to 13 years. Patients were serially followed by MRI, age-corrected visual acuity in log minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), and pattern VEP. Longitudinal data averaged 7.9 years (range 0.5-16 y). Visual assessments were aligned with MRI data within 6-month intervals. Tumor progression was defined by 25% or greater increase in volume. RESULTS: Visual acuity in the better eye had poor sensitivity and specificity for detecting tumor volume progression (0.5 and 0.5, respectively). Visual acuity in the worse eye showed worse sensitivity and specificity because false positives (visual decline without tumor progression) were more frequent than true positives (visual decline with tumor progression). VEPs showed slightly better sensitivity and specificity (0.69 and 0.58, respectively). In patients with stable tumors, visual acuity fluctuated ±0.55 logMAR (SD = 0.15) between examinations. VEP amplitude fluctuated -0.74 to 0.48 log units (SD = 0.19) between examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Serial changes in visual function do not reliably detect tumor progression. Conversely, tumor progression does not reliably indicate decreased visual function. Objective visual function and serial MRIs are complementary in management of optic pathway gliomas.
BACKGROUND: We wanted to determine the sensitivity and specificity of serial changes in visual acuity and visual evoked potentials (VEPs) to detect radiological progression of tumor volume in children with optic pathway gliomas. METHODS: From a retrospective review of a cohort of 69 patients, 54 patients met inclusion criteria (31 with primary chemotherapy, 4 with primary radiotherapy, and 19 with stable tumor volume and no treatment). Age at presentation ranged from 0.3 to 13 years. Patients were serially followed by MRI, age-corrected visual acuity in log minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), and pattern VEP. Longitudinal data averaged 7.9 years (range 0.5-16 y). Visual assessments were aligned with MRI data within 6-month intervals. Tumor progression was defined by 25% or greater increase in volume. RESULTS: Visual acuity in the better eye had poor sensitivity and specificity for detecting tumor volume progression (0.5 and 0.5, respectively). Visual acuity in the worse eye showed worse sensitivity and specificity because false positives (visual decline without tumor progression) were more frequent than true positives (visual decline with tumor progression). VEPs showed slightly better sensitivity and specificity (0.69 and 0.58, respectively). In patients with stable tumors, visual acuity fluctuated ±0.55 logMAR (SD = 0.15) between examinations. VEP amplitude fluctuated -0.74 to 0.48 log units (SD = 0.19) between examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Serial changes in visual function do not reliably detect tumor progression. Conversely, tumor progression does not reliably indicate decreased visual function. Objective visual function and serial MRIs are complementary in management of optic pathway gliomas.
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Joseph Piven; Heather Cody Hazlett; Rachel Gimpel Smith; Sean Ho; James C Gee; Guido Gerig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: R J Packer; J Ater; J Allen; P Phillips; R Geyer; H S Nicholson; R Jakacki; E Kurczynski; M Needle; J Finlay; G Reaman; J M Boyett Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: A J Janss; R Grundy; A Cnaan; P J Savino; R J Packer; E H Zackai; J W Goldwein; L N Sutton; J Radcliffe; P T Molloy Journal: Cancer Date: 1995-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M A Castello; A Schiavetti; A Padula; G Varrasso; E Properzi; G Trasimeni; P Operamolla; G F Gualdi; A Clerico Journal: Med Pediatr Oncol Date: 1995-08
Authors: Peter M K de Blank; Michael J Fisher; Grant T Liu; David H Gutmann; Robert Listernick; Rosalie E Ferner; Robert A Avery Journal: J Neuroophthalmol Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Michael J Wan; Nicole J Ullrich; Peter E Manley; Mark W Kieran; Liliana C Goumnerova; Gena Heidary Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Orr Rozov; Pablo E Piñeyro; Kurt L Zimmerman; Ian P Herring; Rachel Matusow; John H Rossmeisl; Bernard S Jortner; Jennifer Dreyfus Journal: Clin Case Rep Date: 2016-07-27
Authors: Ian C Murray; Conrad Schmoll; Antonios Perperidis; Harry M Brash; Alice D McTrusty; Lorraine A Cameron; Alastair G Wilkinson; Alan O Mulvihill; Brian W Fleck; Robert A Minns Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 3.775