Reaction on “Ocular ultrasound versus MRI in the detection of extrascleral extension in a patient with choroidal melanoma”

Abstract

Abstract Background In the recently published article entitled “Ocular ultrasound versus MRI in the detection of extrascleral extension in a patient with choroidal melanoma” Jacobsen et al. describe a case in which a hyper-intense extra-ocular lesion on MRI was erroneously diagnosed as an extrascleral extension of the tumor. Based upon this the authors conclude “the superiority of ocular ultrasound in the diagnostic management of extra scleral extension in choroidal melanoma”. In our view, there are numerous flaws in the investigation that cast doubt on this message. Main First of all, this is quite a bold statement when only one patient has been evaluated. Secondly, the manuscript only presents a post-contrast T1-weighted image, whereas multiple MRI-sequences need to be included to determine if a hyperintense region is an extrascleral invasion. Moreover, no modern MRI-techniques such Dynamic Contrast Enhanced (DCE) or Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) have been included in the evaluation of this patient, making it hard to use this single case to compare the efficacy of MRI and Ultrasound. The presented data do, however, give clear clues that the hyperintense lesion is likely to be inflammatory. Conclusion Although the study falls short in providing a comprehensive comparison between current MRI techniques and ultrasound, it does show that the evaluation of ocular MR-images should be made in a multi-disciplinary setting involving both ophthalmologist and radiologists, since the field of ocular MRI is continuously progressing.

Keywords

• MRI
• Uveal melanoma
• Extrascleral extension
• Ultrasound