Author Affiliations: The New York Eye Cancer Center, New York University School of Medicine, The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York (Drs Khan, Finger, and Yu); Department of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands (Drs Razzaq, Jager, and de Keizer); Department of Ophthalmic Pathology and Oncology, St Erik's Eye Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (Drs Sandkull and Seregard); Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, Florida (Drs Gologorsky, Schefler, and Murray); Department of Ophthalmology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland (Dr Kivelä); Department of Ophthalmology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario (Drs Giuliari, McGowan, and Simpson), and Department of Ophthalmology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec (Dr Corriveau), Canada; and Departments of Cellular and Molecular Pathology (Dr Coupland) and Ophthalmology (Dr Damato), Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, England.
We thank Dr Silbert for pointing out particular aspects of our article.1 Although the title of his letter focuses on angle involvement in iris melanocytic lesions, he also comments on secondary glaucoma and histopathology. We indeed referenced his landmark article entitled “Are Most Iris ‘Melanomas’ Really Nevi? A Clinicopathologic Study of 189 Lesions,” also published in the Archives 30 years earlier in 1981.2 Our statement that not all previously reported iris melanomas had been studied histopathologically was not specific to his article but was targeted to refer to the cumulative evidence documented in the 9 reports cited in our article.1
Khan S, Finger PT, Yu G, et al. Angle Involvement and Glaucoma in Patients With Biopsy-Proven Iris Melanoma: A Response—Reply. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(9):1229–1231. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.1677
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: