Uveal melanoma (UM) represents approximately 5-6% of all melanoma diagnoses and up to 50% of patients succumb to their disease. Although several methods are available, accurate diagnosis is not always easily feasible because of potential accidents (e.g., intraocular hemorrhage). Based on the assumption that the profile of circulating miRNAs is often altered in human cancers, we verified whether UM patients showed different vitreous humor (VH) or serum miRNA profiles with respect to healthy controls. By using TaqMan Low Density Arrays, we analyzed 754 miRNAs from VH, vitreal exosomes, and serum of 6 UM patients and 6 healthy donors: our data demonstrated that the UM VH profile was unique and only partially overlapping with that from serum of the same patients. Whereas, 90% of miRNAs were shared between VH and vitreal exosomes, and their alterations in UM were statistically overlapped with those of VH and vitreal exosomes, suggesting that VH alterations could result from exosomal dysregulation. We report 32 miRNAs differentially expressed in UM patients in at least 2 different types of samples analyzed. We validated these data on an independent cohort of 12 UM patients. Most alterations were common to VH and vitreal exosomes (e.g., upregulation of miR-21,-34 a,-146a). Interestingly, miR-146a was upregulated in the serum of UM patients, as well as in serum exosomes. Upregulation of miR-21 and miR-146a was also detected in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded UM, suggesting that VH or serum alterations in UM could be the consequence of disregulation arising from tumoral cells. Our findings suggest the possibility to detect in VH and serum of UM patients "diagnostic" miRNAs released by the affected eye: based on this, miR-146a could be considered a potential circulating marker of UM.

Uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults, characterized by an insidious onset and poor prognosis strongly associated with tumor size and the presence of distant metastases, most commonly in the liver. Contrary to most tumor identification, a biopsy followed by a pathological exam is used only in certain cases. Therefore, an early and noninvasive diagnosis is essential to enhance patients’ chances for early treatment. We reviewed imaging modalities currently used in the diagnostics of uveal melanoma, including fundus imaging, ultrasonography (US), optical coherence tomography (OCT), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA), indocyanine green angiography (ICGA), fundus autofluorescence (FAF), as well as positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The principle of imaging techniques is briefly explained, along with their role in the diagnostic process and a summary of their advantages and limitations. Further, the experimental data and the advancements in imaging modalities are explained. We describe UM imaging innovations, show their current usage and development, and explain the possibilities of utilizing such modalities to diagnose uveal melanoma in the future.

The recent outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a public health emergency worldwide. The scientific community has put in much effort and published studies that described COVID-19’s biology, transmission, clinical diagnosis, candidate therapeutics, and vaccines. However, to date, only a few data are available on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on ophthalmological care in different health care systems, its future consequences in terms of disability, and access to sight-saving cures for many patients. To reduce human-to-human transmission of the virus and also ensure supply of infrastructures, human resources, and disposable medical devices to many regions, it is crucial to assess risks and postpone non-essential outpatient visits and elective surgical procedures, especially in older patients and those with comorbidities. This delay or suspension in essential eye procedures may cause significant and rapid vision impairment to irreversible blindness. Determining the risk-benefit profile of treating these ocular pathologies is a public health issue of supreme priority, even though many patients benefiting from therapeutic treatments are elderly, who are more vulnerable to COVID-19. If not reversible, this process could lead to a dramatic increase in disability and unsustainable social costs for many Governments.

Background: Since the efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ), bevacizumab (BVZ) and aflibercept (AFB) is comparable in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the long-term safety profiles of these agents, including ocular safety. Methods: Systematic review identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RBZ, BVZ and AFB directly published before March 2019. Serious ocular adverse events (SOAE) of special interest were endophthalmitis, pseudo-endophthalmitis, retinal pigment epithelium tear and newly identified macular atrophy. Results: Thirteen RCTs selected for meta-analysis (4952 patients, 8723 people-years follow-up): 10 compared RBZ vs. BVZ and three RBZ vs. AFB. There were no significant differences in almost all adverse events (systemic and ocular) between BVZ, RBZ and AFB in up to two years’ follow-up. Macular atrophy was reported heterogeneously and not reported as SOAE in most trials. Conclusions: Direct comparison of RBZ, BVZ and AFB safety profiles in the RCT network meta-analytical setting have not revealed a consistent benefit of these three commonly used anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents in AMD. Network model ranking highlighted potential benefits of RBZ in terms of a systemic safety profile; however, this appears a hypothesis rather than a conclusion. Newly identified macular atrophy is underestimated in RCTs—future real-world data should be focused on SOAE.

Though several procedures of IOL implantation have been described (sutured scleral fixation, intra-scleral fixation, angle-supported anterior chamber, and anterior chamber or retropupillary iris-claw IOLs), there are no randomized trials which are comparing different techniques. Hence, the surgical treatment of aphakia still remains controversial and challenging. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term efficacy and the rate of complications of anterior versus posterior Iris-claw intraocular lenses (IOL) implantation to correct for the treatment of aphakia without sufficient capsule support. Consecutive eyes having secondary implantation of aphakic iris-fixated IOLs with a follow-up of at least 5 years were considered. Mean correct distance visual acuity (CDVA) changes, percentage of eyes with CDVA improvement, mean corneal endothelial cell density (CECD) loss and the rate of other complications were used for statistical analysis. The study evaluated a total of 180 eyes (Group A: 87 anterior chamber iris-claw fixation, Group B: 93 retropupillary iris-claw implantation) of 180 consecutive different patients, with aphakia of various reasons. CDVA improved significantly in both groups after surgery (P<0.001, ANOVA), and was remarkably higher than baseline in both groups from first week and during the entire follow-up (P<0.001, Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference). There was no statistically significant difference in CDVA between the two groups during each follow-up visits (P = NS, unpaired t-test) and in the CDVA improvement percentage between the two groups (P = 0.882, Chi-square test). No significant changes in CECD were noted after surgery in both groups (ANOVA Group A: P = 0.067, Group B: P = 0.330P). No intra-operative complications occurred in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups (P = NS, Chi-square test), except for pigment precipitates which were higher in Group A (P<0.05, Chi-square test). Five-year follow-up shows that secondary implantation of aphakic IOLs is effective and safe for the correction treatment of aphakia in eyes without capsule support.