Ophthalmic Manifestations of Xeroderma Pigmentosum: A Perspective from the United Kingdom

Purpose: To document the ocular manifestations of xeroderma pigmentosum (XP), presenting via the United Kingdom (UK) XP service, and to analyze the correlations between XP genotype and ophthalmic phenotype.

Design: Prospective observational case series.

Subjects: Eighty-nine patients seen by the UK Nationally Commissioned XP Service, from April 2010 to December 2014, with a genetically confirmed diagnosis of XP.

Methods: Patients underwent a full ophthalmic examination at each visit. Clinical features from both eyes were recorded on a standard proforma. The most recent assessments were analyzed. A 2-tailed Fisher exact test was used to assess for differences in ocular features between patients in XP subgroups with impaired transcription coupled nucleotide excision repair (TC-NER) (category 1: XP-A, B, D, F, and G) and preserved TC-NER (category 2: XP-C, E, and V).

Main outcome measures: Lid and periocular abnormalities, ocular surface pathologies, neuro-ophthalmologic abnormalities, lens and retinal abnormalities, and visual acuity (VA).

Results: Ninety-three percent of XP patients in our cohort had ocular involvement, with 65% describing photophobia. The most common abnormalities were in the periocular skin and ocular surface, including interpalpebral conjunctival melanosis (44%) and conjunctival injection (43%). Eleven percent of patients had required treatment for periocular cancers and 2% for ocular surface cancers. The most common neuro-ophthalmologic finding was minimal pupillary reaction to light (25%). Patients in category 2 had significantly more ocular surface abnormalities than patients in category 1, including a greater proportion of conjunctival injection (P = 0.003), conjunctival corkscrew vessels (P < 0.001), corneal scarring (P = 0.01) and pingueculae under the age of 50 (P = 0.02). Meanwhile, patients in category 1 had a higher proportion of poorly reactive pupils (P < 0.001) and abnormal ocular movements (P = 0.03) compared with those in category 2. Five patients (6%) presented to ophthalmologists with ocular surface signs related to XP, before any formal diagnosis of XP was made.

Conclusions: A large proportion of XP patients have ocular involvement. Regular examination by an ophthalmologist is essential, especially in screening for eyelid and ocular surface tumors. The ocular phenotype-genotype segregation within XP patients suggests that XP is a heterogeneous and complex disease. With further study, we hope to offer these patients more individualized patient care.