Abstract

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.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s00330-012-2707-8

View details for Web of Science ID 000317427500015

View details for PubMedID 23160663