Muir-Torre Syndrome Associated Periocular Sebaceous Neoplasms: Screening Patterns in the Literature and in Clinical Practice.
Eyelid sebaceous neoplasm
Muir-Torre syndrome
Screening patterns
Journal
Ocular oncology and pathology
ISSN: 2296-4681
Titre abrégé: Ocul Oncol Pathol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101656139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
22
09
2019
revised:
25
11
2019
entrez:
2
10
2020
pubmed:
3
10
2020
medline:
3
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) is defined clinically as the association of cutaneous sebaceous neoplasm and visceral malignancy. Ancillary tests are considered crucial for diagnosis. Although screening guidelines for MTS, including the Mayo MTS scoring system, have been proposed, there are no ophthalmic site-specific guidelines. A literature review conducted by PubMed search for articles describing patients with periocular sebaceous neoplasm and MTS disclosed 31 publications describing 60 patients, 36 (60%) of whom fulfilled clinical criteria for MTS, 6 (10%) whose diagnosis was based on screening ancillary studies, 14 (23%) who fulfilled clinical criteria and had supporting screening ancillary studies, and 4 (7%) who fulfilled clinical criteria and had supporting diagnostic genetic testing. Most patients were male (34 vs. 15 females), with a median age of 59 years (range 37-79 years). The most common diagnosis was sebaceous carcinoma (40/60, 67%), followed by sebaceous adenoma (16/60, 27%), followed by other tumors with sebaceous differentiation (4/60, 6%). The periocular lesions were identified prior to visceral malignancy in 10 out of 45 (22%) cases, after visceral malignancy in 34 out of 45 (76%) cases, and concurrently with visceral malignancy in 1 out of 45 (2%) cases. Immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins was performed in 41 out of 60 (68%) and 14 out of 38 (37%) of the tumors had lost MSH2. Based on Mayo-MTS scores of 2 or greater, and after removing visceral malignancies not included in their scoring algorithm, 26 out of 30 of patients (87%) with complete data were considered to be appropriate candidates for further work-up. A survey of current practice was conducted by questionnaires, distributed to ophthalmic pathologists, ocular oncologists, and oculoplastic surgeons from national and international professional societies. Of the 103 physicians who participated in the survey, 91 (88%) felt that MTS evaluation guidelines were not sufficiently clear. Our findings suggest that Mayo MTS screening guidelines may be applicable to periocular sebaceous neoplasms. The uncertainty of ophthalmic specialists about optimal screening guidelines for MTS reflects the heterogeneity of defining criteria for MTS and limited molecular genetic data. Larger studies with detailed clinical, histopathologic, and molecular genetic data are required to formally assess screening guidelines for MTS in patients with periocular sebaceous neoplasms.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) is defined clinically as the association of cutaneous sebaceous neoplasm and visceral malignancy. Ancillary tests are considered crucial for diagnosis. Although screening guidelines for MTS, including the Mayo MTS scoring system, have been proposed, there are no ophthalmic site-specific guidelines.
SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
A literature review conducted by PubMed search for articles describing patients with periocular sebaceous neoplasm and MTS disclosed 31 publications describing 60 patients, 36 (60%) of whom fulfilled clinical criteria for MTS, 6 (10%) whose diagnosis was based on screening ancillary studies, 14 (23%) who fulfilled clinical criteria and had supporting screening ancillary studies, and 4 (7%) who fulfilled clinical criteria and had supporting diagnostic genetic testing. Most patients were male (34 vs. 15 females), with a median age of 59 years (range 37-79 years). The most common diagnosis was sebaceous carcinoma (40/60, 67%), followed by sebaceous adenoma (16/60, 27%), followed by other tumors with sebaceous differentiation (4/60, 6%). The periocular lesions were identified prior to visceral malignancy in 10 out of 45 (22%) cases, after visceral malignancy in 34 out of 45 (76%) cases, and concurrently with visceral malignancy in 1 out of 45 (2%) cases. Immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins was performed in 41 out of 60 (68%) and 14 out of 38 (37%) of the tumors had lost MSH2. Based on Mayo-MTS scores of 2 or greater, and after removing visceral malignancies not included in their scoring algorithm, 26 out of 30 of patients (87%) with complete data were considered to be appropriate candidates for further work-up. A survey of current practice was conducted by questionnaires, distributed to ophthalmic pathologists, ocular oncologists, and oculoplastic surgeons from national and international professional societies. Of the 103 physicians who participated in the survey, 91 (88%) felt that MTS evaluation guidelines were not sufficiently clear.
KEY MESSAGES
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that Mayo MTS screening guidelines may be applicable to periocular sebaceous neoplasms. The uncertainty of ophthalmic specialists about optimal screening guidelines for MTS reflects the heterogeneity of defining criteria for MTS and limited molecular genetic data. Larger studies with detailed clinical, histopathologic, and molecular genetic data are required to formally assess screening guidelines for MTS in patients with periocular sebaceous neoplasms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33005611
doi: 10.1159/000504984
pii: oop-0006-0226
pmc: PMC7506251
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
226-237Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Références
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Jan;20(1):31-6
pubmed: 14752307
Cancer. 2008 Dec 15;113(12):3372-81
pubmed: 18932259
Ophthalmology. 2003 Sep;110(9):1833-6
pubmed: 13129885
Dermatol Surg. 2004 Mar;30(3):472-6
pubmed: 15008888
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016 Mar;74(3):558-66
pubmed: 26892655
Br J Ophthalmol. 2015 Jul;99(7):909-13
pubmed: 25595178
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014 Aug;132(8):1025-8
pubmed: 24969841
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999 Nov;41(5 Pt 1):681-6
pubmed: 10534628
Hum Mutat. 2006 Feb;27(2):155-62
pubmed: 16395674
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 Sep;19(5):402-4
pubmed: 14506428
World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Aug 21;21(31):9253-61
pubmed: 26309352
Hum Pathol. 2016 Mar;49:1-9
pubmed: 26826402
J Med Case Rep. 2009 Jul 16;3:6905
pubmed: 19830129
Am J Surg Pathol. 2008 Jun;32(6):936-42
pubmed: 18551751
J Pathol. 2016 Sep;240(1):84-95
pubmed: 27287813
Am J Ophthalmol. 1974 Dec;78(6):952-60
pubmed: 4440729
Ophthalmology. 1988 Nov;95(11):1543-8
pubmed: 3211463
Semin Ophthalmol. 2015;30(5-6):420-2
pubmed: 24117411
J Cutan Pathol. 2003 Mar;30(3):178-84
pubmed: 12641777
Arch Dermatol. 1987 May;123(5):654-5, 658
pubmed: 3579347
J Invest Dermatol. 2006 Oct;126(10):2302-7
pubmed: 16826164
Korean J Ophthalmol. 2013 Jun;27(3):204-7
pubmed: 23730114
Br J Ophthalmol. 2000 Nov;84(11):1325-6
pubmed: 11203175
Br J Ophthalmol. 2011 Dec;95(12):1686-90
pubmed: 21979897
Am J Ophthalmol. 1995 Aug;120(2):248-50
pubmed: 7639310
World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2013 Feb 15;5(2):12-9
pubmed: 23556052
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 Apr;123(4):562-5
pubmed: 15824235
J Cutan Med Surg. 2012 Nov-Dec;16(6):394-9
pubmed: 23149194
Am J Ophthalmol. 2014 Mar;157(3):640-7.e1-2
pubmed: 24321472
Am J Ophthalmol. 1987 Aug 15;104(2):179-82
pubmed: 3618716
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2019 Jul;44(5):506-511
pubmed: 30430625
Int J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec;13(6):559-61
pubmed: 19093187
Hum Pathol. 2014 Mar;45(3):533-9
pubmed: 24440092
J Genet Couns. 2013 Jun;22(3):393-405
pubmed: 23212176
Gastroenterology. 2014 Aug;147(2):502-26
pubmed: 25043945
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Jan-Feb;23(1):77-9
pubmed: 17237705
J Cutan Pathol. 2017 Nov;44(11):931-937
pubmed: 28749576
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Sep-Oct;31(5):422-3
pubmed: 26352527
Surg Case Rep. 2017 Dec;3(1):71
pubmed: 28537014
Dermatol Surg. 2004 Feb;30(2 Pt 1):222-5
pubmed: 14756656
Clin Cancer Res. 2000 May;6(5):1784-9
pubmed: 10815898
JAMA Dermatol. 2014 Dec;150(12):1315-21
pubmed: 25006859
Can J Ophthalmol. 1995 Oct;30(6):324-6
pubmed: 8574982
J Mol Diagn. 2008 Jul;10(4):293-300
pubmed: 18556767
Genet Med. 2014 Sep;16(9):711-6
pubmed: 24603434