Skip to main content
  • Correspondence
  • Open access
  • Published:

Reply to: differential diagnosis of pseudohypopyon and discussion of extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma presenting as hypopyon panuveitis

The Original Article was published on 06 October 2022


Extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma rarely presents as intraocular masquerade syndrome. We thank Dr. Evereklioglu for bringing up the importance of a thorough ocular examination, differential diagnosis, and consideration of the characteristics of ocular masquerade syndrome.

Peer Review reports

Main text

We thank Dr. Evereklioglu for his comments regarding our case report of an intraocular extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL) [1], and we are happy to address his main points here. First, Dr. Evereklioglu questioned the terminology of “hypopyon” that we used in the article. We agree that careful examination to distinguish between true hypopyon and pseudohypopyon would be beneficial. In our defense, we believed most ophthalmologists would understand that our patient did not have true hypopyon, since we clearly explained that the definite diagnosis in our patient was ENKTL. Indeed, in our case report, we aimed to demonstrate an atypical presentation and the disease progression of intraocular ENKTL. We did not wish to mislead ophthalmologists with the terminology we used. Also, many articles published worldwide have used the term hypopyon to describe the findings in ocular masquerade syndrome [2,3,4,5], and we believed the readers would understand the distinction.

Next, Dr. Evereklioglu brought up a point about “uninjected white eye”, and he proposed that this should be used to exclude an infectious etiology of ocular inflammation. We think this is partially correct, and we are not opposing that subtle conjunctival injection is a clue to diagnose ocular masquerade syndrome, but we also raise the point that some patients with infectious uveitis may also present with mild conjunctival injection [6,7,8]. In addition, we did not mention the prior treatment of our patient in the article. She was receiving an hourly topical prednisolone acetate, which may partially have reduced ocular surface inflammation at presentation. Lastly, Dr. Evereklioglu commented on the differential diagnosis that we made, specifically endogenous endophthalmitis (EE), and criticized that EE should not be included in our differential diagnosis. In our defense, the symptoms of EE vary from mild discomfort to severe eye pain and severe visual loss [9, 10]. In one systematic review, it was reported that up to 33% of patients with EE were initially misdiagnosed as noninfectious uveitis, conjunctivitis, and others [11]. Unlike exogenous endophthalmitis, painless ocular inflammation may not always be used to exclude EE and therefore we included EE in our differential diagnosis.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset used during the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.



Endogenous endophthalmitis


Extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma


  1. Sukon N, Tesavibul N, Choopong P, Panyayingyong N, Boonsopon S. Extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma presenting as hypopyon panuveitis: a case report. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;22(1):46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Batis V, Shuttleworth J, Shuttleworth G, Williams GS. Diagnostic dilemma of ocular lymphoma. BMJ Case Rep. 2019;12(6):e229513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hegde SP, Ursekar AT, Chitale AA. Relapsing acute myeloid leukemia presenting as hypopyon uveitis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2011;59(5):391–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Corriveau C, Easterbrook M, Payne D. Lymphoma simulating uveitis (masquerade syndrome). Can J Ophthalmol. 1986;21(4):144–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ayliffe W, Foster CS, Marcoux P, Upton M, Finkelstein M, Kuperwaser M, et al. Relapsing acute myeloid leukemia manifesting as hypopyon uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;119(3):361–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chee SP, Jap A. Endogenous endophthalmitis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001;12(6):464–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pillai GS, Remadevi KK, Anilkumar V, Radhakrishnan N, Rasheed R, Ravindran GC. Clinical profile and outcome of endogenous endophthalmitis at a quaternary referral centre in south India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(5):827–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Antaki F, Javidi S, Touma S, Aubin MJ. Endogenous tuberculous endophthalmitis and panophthalmitis: a systematic review of case reports and case series. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:3075–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Danielescu C, Anton N, Stanca HT, Munteanu M. Endogenous endophthalmitis: a review of case series published between 2011 and 2020. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020:8869590.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Durand ML. Bacterial and fungal endophthalmitis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2017;30(3):597–613.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jackson TL, Paraskevopoulos T, Georgalas I. Systematic review of 342 cases of endogenous bacterial endophthalmitis. Surv Ophthalmol. 2014;59(6):627–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


All the authors would like to thank the patient for her kind participation and cooperation in our study. We acknowledge the support of Sanya Sukpanichnant, MD, FRCPath in the Department of Pathology, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University for help with processing the histopathological tissue diagnosis and providing us with a beautiful photo of the histopathological report.


Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors aided in the data gathering and interpretation of the results. SB and NS contributed to the interpretation of the results and preparation of the manuscript. All the authors aided in the critical revision of the final manuscript. All the authors have approved the final form of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sutasinee Boonsopon.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

A bilingual institutional consent form for publication was obtained from the patient in December 2016 and her next of kin in April 2021.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sukon, N., Tesavibul, N., Choopong, P. et al. Reply to: differential diagnosis of pseudohypopyon and discussion of extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma presenting as hypopyon panuveitis. BMC Ophthalmol 22, 393 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: