[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
August 1969


Author Affiliations

Gainesville, Fla

Arch Ophthalmol. 1969;82(2):297-298. doi:10.1001/archopht.1969.00990020299036

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor.  —Thank you for the opportunity of replying to Dr. Brockhurst's comments on our paper, "Spontaneously Regressed Probable Retinoblastoma."Normally we would not quibble about his disagreement with our use of the word "probable," since, as he points out, we obtained neither a family history nor a pathological diagnosis. In this case, however, we feel that Dr. Brockhurst has missed the main point of our paper—the emphasis being that in our experience the specific lesion shown in the photographs is very unlikely to be anything but a retrogressed retinoblastoma on the basis of its appearance alone, that is, the appearance itself is quite characteristic. We disagree with his assertion that the lesion we described and pictured is likely to represent the residua of previous trauma, inflammation, or any other congenital disorder. While we do not doubt that other lesions which might later be proven pathologically to be

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview