No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCEFacial recognition is a critical activity of daily living that relies on macular function. Glaucomatous macular damage may result in impaired facial recognition that may negatively affect patient quality of life.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of patterns of glaucomatous macular damage with contrast sensitivity and facial recognition among patients with glaucoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this prospective cohort study at a single tertiary care center, 144 eyes of 72 consecutive patients with glaucoma with good visual acuity (20/40 or better in each eye) were studied. Data were collected from March to April 2019.EXPOSURES Eyes with macular damage were categorized as having focal, diffuse, or mixed (focal and diffuse) damage based on optic disc and macular spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and 10-2 visual field (VF) damage. Only eyes with focal or diffuse damage were included. Higher-acuity and lower-acuity eyes were determined by 10-2 VF mean deviation (MD). Facial disability was defined as facial recognition scores at the 2% level of normal participants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES(1) Monocular contrast threshold as measured by the Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test and (2) binocular facial recognition as measured by the Cambridge Face Memory Test. RESULTSOf the 72 included patients, 49 (68%) were White and 41 (57%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 67.0 (11.6) years. Eyes with diffuse damage had greater contrast impairment compared with eyes with focal damage (β = −0.5; 95% CI, −0.6 to −0.4; P < .001) after adjusting for 10-2 VF MD, 24-2 VF MD, age, presence of an early cataract, and number of drops. Similarly, Cambridge Face Memory Test scores were significantly lower in patients with diffuse rather than focal macular damage, regardless of eye (better-seeing eye: β = 10.0; 95% CI, 2.0 to 18.2; P = .001; worse-seeing eye: β = 5.5; 95% CI, 0.8 to 10.0; P = .23). Relative risk of facial disability was greater for patients with diffuse but not focal macular damage in the better-seeing eye (relative risk, 86.2; 95% CI, 2.7 to 2783.3; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cohort study, diffuse rather than focal glaucomatous macular damage was associated with diminished facial recognition and contrast sensitivity. Evaluation of macular optical coherence tomography and 10-2 VF and resultant detection of diffuse macular damage may help minimize glaucoma-related visual disability.

Purpose Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) as a form of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is controversial given the limited evidence to support its efficacy. However, it remains an attractive option for low-risk patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), who derive a small absolute benefit in local control with standard whole breast irradiation (WBI). We examine how the American Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) APBI consensus guidelines (CG) may be applied to the preoperative selection of patients with DCIS for IORT and determine treatment outcomes by CG group. Methods and Materials We identified patients with biopsy-proven pure DCIS enrolled in an institutional prospective registry IORT database using the Zeiss Intrabeam ® device between September 2013 and February 2017. Based on available preoperative clinicopathologic information, patients were deemed suitable, cautionary, or unsuitable for IORT according to the ASTRO CG. Change in CG group based on final pathologic diagnosis was determined, and additional therapy was recommended for unsuitable patients. Outcome in terms of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence was determined. Results A total of 61 DCIS lesions in 60 patients were treated with IORT. Preoperatively, 21 patients (35%) were suitable and 36 (59%) were cautionary. Four (6%) were unsuitable because of lesion size but declined WBI. Final pathologic diagnosis changed the CG grouping of 10 patients (16%) because of either occult high-grade disease in 2 (3%) or close/positive margins in 8 (13%). Ultimately 12 patients total were considered unsuitable, of whom 8 (66%) accepted additional WBI after IORT. At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence was identified among 2 suitable, 1 cautionary, and no unsuitable patients. Conclusion Further investigation is necessary to refine selection of patients with DCIS who may be optimally treated with IORT alone. High acceptance of additional therapy among unsuitable patients resulted in excellent outcomes. The use of biomarkers in addition to traditional clinical and pathologic factors may help to better select patients for IORT.