A Case of Homonymous Hemianopia Caused by Metastatic Melanoma: Incorporating Neuro-Ophthalmological Exams in Screening for Recurrent Metastatic Disease

Maja Magazin^1, and Lee Shettle D.O.²

¹Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ft. Lauderdale, U.S.A.

²Lee Shettle Eye and Hearing, Largo, U.S.A.

Cite this paper:
Maja Magazin and Lee Shettle D.O.. A Case of Homonymous Hemianopia Caused by Metastatic Melanoma: Incorporating Neuro-Ophthalmological Exams in Screening for Recurrent Metastatic Disease. Neuro-Ophthalmology & Visual Neuroscience. 2019; 4(1):1-3. doi: 10.12691/novn-4-1-1

Abstract

Central nervous system tumors cause about 11% of all cases of homonymous hemianopia.¹ Detection of visual field defects is important as it can aid in localization of cerebral lesions, especially in metastatic disease. These visual field defects are often unrecognized by the patient and may go undiagnosed without the proper screening. Here we present a case of left homonymous hemianopia caused by metastatic melanoma to the occipital lobe. Incorporating neuro-ophthalmological exams into current guidelines for surveillance of cutaneous melanoma may aid in the early detection of recurrent disease.

Keywords:
neuro-ophthalmology melanoma homonymous hemianopia

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Zhang, X., Kedar, S., Lynn, M., Newman, N., & Biousse, V. “Homonymous hemianopias: Clinical-anatomic correlations in 904 cases.” American Journal of Ophthalmology, 142(2), 365-366, March 2006.
[2]	Goodwin D. “Homonymous hemianopia: challenges and solutions.” Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 8, 1919-27. September 2014.
[3]	Gilhotra JS, Mitchell P, Healey PR, et al. “Homonymous visual field defects and stroke in an older population.” Stroke; 33: 2417-2420. October 2002.
[4]	Graf, A., Buchberger, W., Langmayr, H., & Schmid, K. W. “Site preference of metastatic tumours of the brain.” Virchows Archiv A Pathological Anatomy and Histopathology, 412(5), 493-498. 1988.
[5]	Marciano, N. J., Merlin, T. L., Bessen, T., & Street, J. M. “To what extent are current guidelines for cutaneous melanoma follow up based on scientific evidence?” International Journal of Clinical Practice, 68(6), 761-770. June 2014.
[6]	Trotter, S. C., Sroa, N., Winkelmann, R. R., Olencki, T., & Bechtel, M. “A Global Review of Melanoma Follow-up Guidelines.” The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 6(9), 18-26. September 2013.
[7]	NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Accessed June 2019.
[8]	Hofmann, U., Szedlak, M., Rittgen, W., Jung, E. G., & Schadendorf, D. “Primary staging and follow-up in melanoma patients – monocenter evaluation of methods, costs and patient survival.” British Journal of Cancer, 87(2), 151-157. May 2002.
[9]	McKenna, D.B., Marioni, J.C., Lee, R.J., Prescott, R.J., Doherty, V.R. A comparison of dermatologists’ surgeons’ and general practitioners’ surgical management of cutaneous melanoma. British Journal of Dermatology, 151(3), 636-644. September 2004.
[10]	Schoenewolf, N., Belloni, B., Simcock, M., Tonolla, S., Vogt, P., Scherrer, E., Holzmann, D., Dummer, R. (2014). Clinical Implications of Distinct Metastasizing Preferences of Different Melanoma Subtypes. European Journal of Dermatology. 24(2): 236-241.