ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We aimed to study reported cases of nasopharyngeal carcinoma presenting with ophthalmic manifestations with and without a prior diagnosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE database in PubMed and Google Scholar. We included patients with a previous diagnosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Group I and those without a prior diagnosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Group II. Data included demographics, clinical presentation, history of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, treatment, histopathological description, World Health Organization classification, and outcome.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (26 in Group I and 32 in Group II) were included. The male-to-female ratio was 3:1. The mean age of the patients (53.3 ± 11.7 years and 54.8 ± 16.2 years, respectively) and gender did not differ significantly between the two groups. The most common ocular presentations were diplopia and proptosis in the first group (each in 34.6%), whereas visual disturbance was most common in the second group (46.9%). Treatment options and World Health Organization grading were comparable. The outcome in 38 patients (after a comparable follow-up period) was significantly better in group II (p=0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in the outcome of 23 patients in correlation with World Health Organization grades II versus III irrespective of group (p=0.094).
CONCLUSIONS: The demographics of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma presenting with ophthalmic manifestations were similar between the two study groups, with a wide age range and male predominance. Patients presenting initially to ophthalmologists with no history of nasopharyngeal carcinoma have a more favorable outcome. World Health Organization grading may have less value as a prognostic indicator.

Keywords: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Carcinoma; Eye manifestations; Exophthalmos; Diplopia; Systematic review

THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THIS LANGUAGE.