Purpose: To report five cases of macular hole (MH) coexisting with uveal melanoma (UM) and review the literature. Methods: Seventeen patients (5 new and 12 from previous reports) with coexisting MH and UM were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the MH was diagnosed before or after tumor treatment. The clinical features, pathogenesis, management options, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results: Of 505 patients with UM in our institution, 5 (1.0%) had a concurrent MH in the ipsilateral eye. The 17 patients reviewed had a mean age of 63.9 years at the time of MH diagnosis. Of 16 patients with available data on sex, 11 (64.7%) were female. There were no major differences in the demographic or clinical data of the groups. Of the 15 known tumor locations, 6 (35.3%) were juxtapapillary or macular. In patients who developed MH after UM treatment, the durations from tumor treatment (radiotherapy or transpupillary thermotherapy) to MH diagnosis were 3 to 56 months (median, 8.5 months). MH surgery was performed in nine eyes, and hole closure was achieved in seven eyes with postoperative data. The mean visual acuity showed a tendency of improvement after surgery. No intraocular or extraocular tumor dissemination associated with surgery was observed. Conclusions MH is observed in approximately 1% of patients with UM, either before or after tumor treatment. Of patients with coexisting MH and UM, MH surgery appears to be safe and effective in those with stable tumors and visual potential.

Purpose: To report five cases of macular hole (MH) coexisting with uveal melanoma (UM) and review the literature. Methods: Seventeen patients (5 new and 12 from previous reports) with coexisting MH and UM were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the MH was diagnosed before or after tumor treatment. The clinical features, pathogenesis, management options, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results: Of 505 patients with UM in our institution, 5 (1.0%) had a concurrent MH in the ipsilateral eye. The 17 patients reviewed had a mean age of 63.9 years at the time of MH diagnosis. Of 16 patients with available data on sex, 11 (64.7%) were female. There were no major differences in the demographic or clinical data of the groups. Of the 15 known tumor locations, 6 (35.3%) were juxtapapillary or macular. In patients who developed MH after UM treatment, the durations from tumor treatment (radiotherapy or transpupillary thermotherapy) to MH diagnosis were 3 to 56 months (median, 8.5 months). MH surgery was performed in nine eyes, and hole closure was achieved in seven eyes with postoperative data. The mean visual acuity showed a tendency of improvement after surgery. No intraocular or extraocular tumor dissemination associated with surgery was observed. Conclusions MH is observed in approximately 1% of patients with UM, either before or after tumor treatment. Of patients with coexisting MH and UM, MH surgery appears to be safe and effective in those with stable tumors and visual potential.

Purpose: To report five cases of macular hole (MH) coexisting with uveal melanoma (UM) and review the literature. Methods: Seventeen patients (5 new and 12 from previous reports) with coexisting MH and UM were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the MH was diagnosed before or after tumor treatment. The clinical features, pathogenesis, management options, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results: Of 505 patients with UM in our institution, 5 (1.0%) had a concurrent MH in the ipsilateral eye. The 17 patients reviewed had a mean age of 63.9 years at the time of MH diagnosis. Of 16 patients with available data on sex, 11 (64.7%) were female. There were no major differences in the demographic or clinical data of the groups. Of the 15 known tumor locations, 6 (35.3%) were juxtapapillary or macular. In patients who developed MH after UM treatment, the durations from tumor treatment (radiotherapy or transpupillary thermotherapy) to MH diagnosis were 3 to 56 months (median, 8.5 months). MH surgery was performed in nine eyes, and hole closure was achieved in seven eyes with postoperative data. The mean visual acuity showed a tendency of improvement after surgery. No intraocular or extraocular tumor dissemination associated with surgery was observed. Conclusions MH is observed in approximately 1% of patients with UM, either before or after tumor treatment. Of patients with coexisting MH and UM, MH surgery appears to be safe and effective in those with stable tumors and visual potential.

Purpose: To report five cases of macular hole (MH) coexisting with uveal melanoma (UM) and review the literature. Methods: Seventeen patients (5 new and 12 from previous reports) with coexisting MH and UM were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the MH was diagnosed before or after tumor treatment. The clinical features, pathogenesis, management options, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results: Of 505 patients with UM in our institution, 5 (1.0%) had a concurrent MH in the ipsilateral eye. The 17 patients reviewed had a mean age of 63.9 years at the time of MH diagnosis. Of 16 patients with available data on sex, 11 (64.7%) were female. There were no major differences in the demographic or clinical data of the groups. Of the 15 known tumor locations, 6 (35.3%) were juxtapapillary or macular. In patients who developed MH after UM treatment, the durations from tumor treatment (radiotherapy or transpupillary thermotherapy) to MH diagnosis were 3 to 56 months (median, 8.5 months). MH surgery was performed in nine eyes, and hole closure was achieved in seven eyes with postoperative data. The mean visual acuity showed a tendency of improvement after surgery. No intraocular or extraocular tumor dissemination associated with surgery was observed. Conclusions MH is observed in approximately 1% of patients with UM, either before or after tumor treatment. Of patients with coexisting MH and UM, MH surgery appears to be safe and effective in those with stable tumors and visual potential.

Purpose: To report five cases of macular hole (MH) coexisting with uveal melanoma (UM) and review the literature. Methods: Seventeen patients (5 new and 12 from previous reports) with coexisting MH and UM were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the MH was diagnosed before or after tumor treatment. The clinical features, pathogenesis, management options, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Results: Of 505 patients with UM in our institution, 5 (1.0%) had a concurrent MH in the ipsilateral eye. The 17 patients reviewed had a mean age of 63.9 years at the time of MH diagnosis. Of 16 patients with available data on sex, 11 (64.7%) were female. There were no major differences in the demographic or clinical data of the groups. Of the 15 known tumor locations, 6 (35.3%) were juxtapapillary or macular. In patients who developed MH after UM treatment, the durations from tumor treatment (radiotherapy or transpupillary thermotherapy) to MH diagnosis were 3 to 56 months (median, 8.5 months). MH surgery was performed in nine eyes, and hole closure was achieved in seven eyes with postoperative data. The mean visual acuity showed a tendency of improvement after surgery. No intraocular or extraocular tumor dissemination associated with surgery was observed. Conclusions MH is observed in approximately 1% of patients with UM, either before or after tumor treatment. Of patients with coexisting MH and UM, MH surgery appears to be safe and effective in those with stable tumors and visual potential.

Purpose: Sirolimus has emerged as a safe and effective treatment for complicated lymphatic malformations (LMs). We aim to prove the effectiveness and safety of sirolimus as a therapeutic option for patients with complicated LMs. Methods: Fifty-eight patients with complicated LMs treated with sirolimus for at least 6 months at multicenter between July 2018 and January 2023 were enrolled. All patients were administered oral sirolimus starting at 0.8 mg/m 2 every 12 hours, with target serum concentration levels of 8–15 ng/mL. Evaluation for clinical symptoms and LMs volume on MRI were reviewed to assess treatment response and toxicities. Evaluation of disease response was divided into 3 values:complete response, partial response (significant, moderate, and modest), and progressive disease. Results: The median age at the initiation of sirolimus treatment was 6.0 years (range, 1 month–26.7 years). The median duration of treatment was 2.0 years (range, 6 months–4.4 years). The most common lesions were head and neck (25 of 58, 43.1%). Forty-six patients (79.3%) demonstrated a reduction in LMs volume on MRI or improvement of clinical symptoms including 2 complete responses. The young age group and the patients who underwent few prior therapies showed better responses. None of the patients had toxicities attributable to sirolimus with a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade of ≥3. Conclusion Oral sirolimus treatment brought a successful outcome without severe adverse effects. It could be the firstline therapy, especially for the young age group of complicated LMs, and an additional option for refractory lesions that did not respond to conventional treatment.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.