According to the WHO classification, MALT lymphoma is defined as an extranodal lymphoma composed of morphologically heterogeneous small B-cells including marginal zone cells, cells resembling monocitoid cells, small lymphocytes, scattered immunoblast cells and centroblast-like cells [3, 8]. MALT lymphoma can arise in a variety of sites. To the best of our knowledge, ocular MALT lymphoma usually involves ocular adnexa primarily and was defined as the MALT type of primary ocular adnexal lymphoma (POAML). It generally develops in females after the fourth decades of life [14]. Except for the "salmon patch" symptom related to conjunctival involvement, most of the other clinical features are related to orbital invasion, including exophthalmia (27%), palpable mass (19%), decreased visual acuity and ptosis (6%) and diplopia (2%) [14]. POAML has been reported to account for 35–90% of ocular lymphoma [15–18]. However, in a very few cases, MALT lymphoma can involve uvea, which makes these series of cases special.
Ocular MALT lymphoma involving uvea primarily can masquerade as posterior scleritis and can be easily misdiagnosed as uveitis and choroidal hemangioma. Posterior scleritis is a unilateral disease with strong female predominance. The most common presenting symptoms are pain and decreased vision [19]. The patients in our study complained about their blurred vision and hyperemia but had no typical symptoms like “salmon patch” initially. Unfortunately, they were initially misdiagnosed as scleritis and treated with corticosteroid before the first visit in our hospital.
Among all the clinical examinations of ocular MALT lymphoma in uvea, B-scan ultrasonography is the most valuable imaging modality [20]. Typical ultrasonographic features are hollow (hypoechoic) choroidal thickening and local hypoechoic extrascleral extension (ESE). The combination of these two signs is highly suggestive of ocular MALT lymphoma in uvea, but it should be noted that similar ultrasound findings can also be seen in diffuse choroidal melanoma with ESE [21]. They still need to be differentiated through pathologic examinations of biopsy. In our study, the result of B-scan ultrasonography showed significantly thickened eyeball with reduced internal echo in all cases. Besides, irregular hypoechoic lesions with abundant blood flow were found in the orbit (ESE in all cases). The lesions surrounded the bulbar wall and optic nerve in 2 cases. These results of ultrasonography not only indicated the mass with abundant blood and irregular cysts in the eyeball wall, but were helpful to the extent of involvement of ocular lymphoma in uveal tissue.
Compared with ultrasonography, FFA, ICGA and MRI are of limited value in the diagnosis of ocular MALT lymphoma in uvea. FFA could show weak fluorescence at early phase and strong fluorescence at middle and late phase in the lesions of ocular MALT lymphoma in uvea [22]. Both early and late ICGA could show weak choroidal fluorescence (choroidal folds) in the lesions. In our cases, all the FFA results showed patch-like strong fluorescence during the venous phase and fluorescein leakage in the late stage. The ICGA results of 2 cases both showed strong fluorescence. Both of these examinations lacked characteristics. Conversely, MRI is helpful to find orbital involvement of ocular MALT lymphoma by showing thickened and enhanced wall of the eyeballs [3, 23]. Also, it is much easier to detect lesions with different shapes and invasive growth through MRI, which often surround the eyeball, extraocular muscles and optic nerve. However, the signal of the lesions in our case is irregular and lack of characteristics, and the resolution is lower than that of ocular ultrasonography.
Although the accuracy of typical ocular manifestations and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of ocular MALT lymphoma in uvea is high, the gold standard of diagnosis are histopathology examination and immunophenotyping examination of surgical biopsy [21, 24]. Histologically, Suzuki et al proposed several main pathological features for the diagnosis of MALT lymphoma, including (1) infiltrating lymphocytes are centrocyte-like cells (marginal zone cells) with irregular nuclei and abundant pale cytoplasm, (2) plasmocytic differentiation with or without Dutcher bodies (intracytoplasmic inclusions), (3) follicular colonization with infiltration of germinal centers by centrocyte-like cells or atrophic germinal center, (4) lymphoepithelial lesion (LEL) [25]. However, the characterization of ocular MALT lymphoma in uvea is not as simple. Similar to POAML, some of the histological features observed in this special lymphoma, such as invasive lesions, reactive B-cell follicles and LELs overlap with the histological features of reactive lymphoepithelial infiltration in the ocular adnexa and uvea, which may make it difficult to diagnose precisely [26]. In our study, the diagnosis of all the patients in our study were eventually confirmed by biopsy of their involved tissue. Furthermore, compared with the histological examination, immunophenotyping and molecular diagnostic techniques have greatly improved the diagnostic level of ocular MALT lymphoma. The characteristic immunophenotypic profiles are CD10neg, CD20pos, CD23neg, BCL2neg, BCL6neg and Cyclin D1negwith a few interspersed CD3posT lymphocytes [8]. However, there is still a lack of specific markers and more research is needed.
We must admit that there were still some limitations in our study. Due to the rare incidence of ocular MALT lymphoma in uvea, only 3 cases were included in our study. The follow-up period was short and the data were incomplete. More studies will be conducted to summarize the clinical manifestations, ocular imaging features and pathological changes ocular MALT lymphoma in uvea in the future.