The 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours of the Eye and Orbit is the latest step in standardizing the diagnostic practice worldwide. Building upon the 4th edition, published in 2018, the 5th edition introduces new chapters on the eyelid and orbital tumors, and consolidates sections on hematolymphoid tumors, soft tissue and bone tumors, metastases and genetic tumor predisposition syndromes into dedicated chapters. Written in the format of the other 5th edition volumes, a systematic approach is taken to describe the defining characteristics of each tumor type and its staging, with the addition of macroscopic appearance, cytology, diagnostic molecular pathology, and essential and desirable diagnostic criteria. This volume highlights recent advances in the etiology, pathogenesis, and diagnosis of tumors of the eye and ocular adnexa. Radiologic and ophthalmic features are also emphasized. Moreover, the 5th edition includes updates on the classification scheme for certain tumors, such as vascular anomalies, and introduces tumors that have been recently identified in the eye and ocular adnexa. This editorial summarizes the major general changes in the 5th edition of the WHO classification of Tumours of the Eye and Orbit, and the specific updates in each taxonomic category, with an emphasis on advances in understanding tumor pathogenesis, diagnostic and prognostic criteria, and novel immunohistochemical and molecular markers.

The gold standard substrate for the ex vivo expansion of human limbal stem cells (LSCs) remains the human amniotic membrane (HAM) but this is not a defined substrate and is subject to biological variability and the potential to transmit disease. To better define HAM and mitigate the risk of disease transmission, we sought to determine if decellularisation and/or γ-irradiation have an adverse effect on culture growth and LSC phenotype. Ex vivo limbal explant cultures were set up on fresh HAM, HAM decellularised with 0.5M NaOH, and 0.5% (w/v) sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) with or without γ-irradiation. Explant growth rate was measured and LSC phenotype was characterised by histology, immunostaining and qRT-PCR (ABCG2, ΔNp63, Ki67, CK12, and CK13). Ƴ-irradiation marginally stiffened HAM, as measured by Brillouin spectromicroscopy. HAM stiffness and γ-irradiation did not significantly affect the LSC phenotype, however LSCs expanded significantly faster on Ƴ-irradiated SDS decellularised HAM (p<0.05) which was also corroborated by the highest expression of Ki67 and putative LSC marker, ABCG2. Colony forming efficiency assays showed a greater yield and proportion of holoclones in cells cultured on Ƴ-irradiated SDS decellularised HAM. Together our data indicate that SDS decellularised HAM may be a more efficacious substrate for the expansion of LSCs and the use of a γ-irradiated HAM allows the user to start the manufacturing process with a sterile substrate, potentially making it safer. Despite its disadvantages, including its biological variability and its ability to transfer disease, human amniotic membrane (HAM) remains the gold standard substrate for limbal stem cell (LSC) culture. To address these disadvantages, we used a decellularised HAM sterilised by gamma-irradiation for LSC culture. We cultured LSCs on fresh HAM, HAM decellularised with NaOH, HAM decellularised with sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and HAM decellularised with SDS and sterilised with gamma-irradiation. We demonstrated that although HAM decellularised with SDS and sterilised with gamma-irradiation is significantly stiffer this does not affect LSC culture growth rate or the phenotype of cultured LSCs. We therefore recommend the use of SDS decellularised gamma-irradiated HAM in future LSC clinical trials.

Background Even in experienced hands, the classification of some melanocytic lesions of the conjunctiva remains challenging. In skin pathology, the recent application of fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) has been demonstrated to be of use for the analysis and diagnosis of ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms of the skin. This study set out to evaluate this method on seven prospective conjunctival cases that were histologically equivocal. Methods 18 unequivocal retrospective melanocytic controls were exposed to FISH. Commercially available probes assessing copy numbers of RREB1 (6p25), MYB (6q23) and CCND1 (11q13) genes compared with CEP6 (a chromosome six centromeric reference point) were used. After control verification, seven prospective, equivocal cases were identified and exposed to FISH. Results There was complete correlation between FISH result and the control section histopathology report. Control cases of melanoma cases were all positive for FISH and control benign lesions were negative. Of the seven equivocal cases, five were positive and classed as invasive melanoma or melanoma-in situ, one was negative and one tetraploid, classed as negative (these last two cases were classed as naevi with careful clinical observation). Conclusions FISH is very useful in classifying equivocal conjunctival melanocytic lesions, especially those with atypical junctional activity and naevoid melanocytic proliferations of the conjunctiva.