Background: Corneal imaging may support an early diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy. The goal of our study was to analyze corneal stromal properties using Pentacam and in vivo confocal cornea microscopy (IVCM) in subjects with monoclonal gammopathy. Patients and methods: In our cross-sectional study, patients with monoclonal gammopathy (130 eyes of 65 patients (40.0% males; age 67.65 ± 9.74 years)) and randomly selected individuals of the same age group, without hematological disease (100 eyes of 50 control subjects (40.0% males; age 60.67 ± 15.06 years)) were included. Using Pentacam (Pentacam HR; Oculus GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany), corneal stromal light scattering values were obtained (1) centrally 0–2 mm zone; (2) 2–6 mm zone; (3) 6–10 mm zone; (4) 10–12 mm zone. Using IVCM with Heidelberg Retina Tomograph with Rostock Cornea Module (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany), the density of hyperreflective keratocytes and the number of hyperreflective spikes per image were manually analyzed, in the stroma. Results: In the first, second and third annular zone, light scattering was significantly higher in subjects with monoclonal gammopathy, than in controls (p ≤ 0.04). The number of hyperreflective keratocytes and hyperreflective spikes per image was significantly higher in stroma of subjects with monoclonal gammopathy (p ≤ 0.012). Conclusions: Our study confirms that increased corneal light scattering in the central 10 mm annular zone and increased keratocyte hyperreflectivity may give rise to suspicion of monoclonal gammopathy. As corneal light scattering is not increased at the limbal 10–12 mm annular zone in monoclonal gammopathy subjects, our spatial analysis provides evidence against the limbal origin of corneal paraprotein deposition. Using IVCM, stromal hyperreflective spikes may represent specific signs of monoclonal gammopathy.

Purpose. To examine the ocular signs of monoclonal gammopathy and to evaluate ocular comorbidities in subjects with monoclonal gammopathy. Patients and Methods. We analyzed patients from two large referral hematology centers in Budapest, diagnosed and/or treated with monoclonal gammopathy between 1997 and 2020. As a control group, randomly selected individuals of the same age group, without hematological disease, have been included. There were 160 eyes of 80 patients (38.75% males; age 67.61 ± 10.48 (range: 38–85) years) with monoclonal gammopathy and 86 eyes of 43 control subjects (32.56% males; age 62.44 ± 11.89 (range 37–86) years). The hematological diagnosis was MGUS in 9 (11.25%), multiple myeloma in 61 (76.25%), smoldering myeloma in 6 (7.50%), and amyloidosis or Waldenström macroglobulinemia in 2 cases (2.50%–2.50%). Before detailed ophthalmic examination with fundoscopy, 42 subjects with gammopathy (52.50%) and all controls filled the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. Results. The OSDI score and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were significantly worse in subjects with monoclonal gammopathy than in controls ( p = 0.02 ; p = 0.0005 ). Among gammopathy subjects, we observed potential corneal immunoglobulin deposition in 6 eyes of 4 (3.75%) patients. Ocular surface disease ( p = 0.0001 ), posterior cortical cataract ( p = 0.01 ), and cataract ( p = 0.0001 ) were significantly more common among gammopathy subjects than in controls (χ2 test). Conclusions. Ocular surface disease and cataract are more common, and BCVA is worse in patients with monoclonal gammopathy than in age-matched controls. Therefore, and due to the potential ocular signs and comorbidities of monoclonal gammopathy, we suggest a regular, yearly ophthalmic checkup of these patients to improve their quality of life.

No abstract

Összefoglaló. Célkitűzés: A monoklonális gammopathia szemészeti jeleinek és szövődményeinek vizsgálata. Betegek és módszerek: Két nagy budapesti hematológiai ellátóhely 1999 és 2020 között diagnosztizált és/vagy kezelt, monoklonális gammopathiát mutató betegeit vizsgáltuk (42 beteg 84 szeme, 42,86% férfi; átlagéletkor 63,83 ± 10,76 év). A hematológiai diagnózis 3 esetben bizonytalan jelentőségű monoklonális gammopathia, 34 esetben myeloma multiplex, 3 esetben parázsló myeloma, 1-1 esetben Waldenström-macroglobulinaemia és amyloidosis voltak. Kontrollcsoportként véletlenszerűen kiválasztott, hasonló korcsoportú, hematológiai betegség nélküli egyéneket vizsgáltunk (43 beteg 86 szeme, 32,56% férfi; átlagéletkor 62,44 ± 11,89 év). A szemészeti vizsgálat előtt minden személy kitöltötte a Szemfelszíni Betegség Index (OSDI-) kérdőívet. A szemészeti vizsgálat során a látóélesség vizsgálata mellett pupillatágítást követően réslámpás vizsgálatot végeztünk. Eredmények: Monoklonális gammopathiában az OSDI-érték szignifikánsan magasabb volt, mint a kontrollokban (p = 0,002). Gammopathiában 3 beteg 5 szeménél (5,95%) találtunk potenciális szaruhártya-immunglobulinlerakódást. Gammopathiában szárazszem-betegség 66,67%-ban, szürke hályog 55,95%-ban, Meibom-mirigy-diszfunkció 20,24%-ban, hátsó kérgi szürke hályog 19,05%-ban, egyéb szaruhártyahegek és -homályok 17,86%-ban, krónikus szemhéjgyulladás 14,29%-ban, szemészeti eltérés hiánya 11,90%-ban, macula- és/vagy retinadrusen 9,52%-ban, szaruhártya-immunglobulinlerakódás 5,95%-ban, epiretinalis membrán 5,95%-ban, korábbi szürkehályog-műtét 5,95%-ban, glaucoma 4,76%-ban, Fuchs-dystrophia 2,38%-ban, perifériás retinadegeneráció 2,38%-ban, chorioidea naevus 2,38%-ban, diabeteses retinopathia 1,19%-ban, arteria centralis retinae elzáródás 1,19%-ban, vena centralis retinae ágelzáródás 1,19%-ban, amblyopia 1,19%-ban volt kimutatható. A szárazszem-betegség (p = 0,002), a hátsó kérgi szürke hályog (p = 0,001), a szürke hályog (p<0,00001) és az egyéb szaruhártyahegek és -homályok (p = 0,01) szignifikánsan magasabb arányban fordultak elő a monoklonális gammopathiát mutató betegekben, mint a kontrollokban. Következtetés : Monoklonális gammopathiában a szárazszem-betegség és a szürke hályog a leggyakoribb szemészeti eltérés. A monoklonális gammopathia potenciális szemészeti jelei és szövődményei miatt javasoljuk a betegek évenkénti szemészeti ellenőrzését, életminőségük javítása érdekében. Orv Hetil. 2021; 162(38): 1533–1540. Summary. Objective: To examine ocular signs and ocular comorbidities in monoclonal gammopathy. Patients and methods: We analyzed patients from two large referral hematology centers in Budapest, who were diagnosed and/or treated with monoclonal gammopathy between 1997 and 2020 (84 eyes of 42 patients, 42.86% male, mean age 63.83 ± 10.76 years). Before the ophthalmic examination, the subjects filled in the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. Ophthalmic examination included visual acuity test and slit-lamp examination following dilation of the pupil. Results: OSDI scores were significantly higher in subjects with monoclonal gammopathy than in controls (p = 0.002). Among gammopathy subjects, we observed potential corneal immunoglobulin deposition in 5 eyes of 3 patients (5.95%). In gammopathy subjects, there was dry eye disease (66.67%), cataract (55.95%), Meibomian gland dysfunction (20.24%), posterior cortical cataract (19.05%), corneal scars and degenerations (17.86%), chronic blepharitis (14.29%), absence of ocular complaint (11.90%), macular or retinal drusen (9.52%), corneal immunoglobulin deposition (5.95%), epiretinal membrane (5.95%), previous cataract surgery (5.95%), glaucoma (4.76%), Fuchs dystrophy (2.38%), peripheral retinal degeneration (2.38%), chorioideal naevus (2.38%), diabetic retinopathy (1.19%), central retinal artery occlusion (1.19%), central retinal vein branch occlusion (1.19%) and amblyopia (1.19%). The proportion of dry eye disease (p = 0.002), posterior cortical cataract (p = 0.001), cataract (p<0.00001), and corneal scars and degenerations (p = 0.01) were significantly higher in gammopathy subjects than in controls. Conclusion: Dry eye disease and cataracts are the most common ocular comorbidities in patients with monoclonal gammopathy. Therefore, due to the potential ocular signs and comorbidities of monoclonal gammopathy, we suggest a regular, yearly ophthalmic checkup of these patients to improve their quality of life. Orv Hetil. 2021; 162(38): 1533–1540.