Taylor Nayman1,2, Cristina Bostan1,3, Patrick Logan1, Miguel N Burnier1,4. 1. a The Henry C. Witelson Ocular Pathology Laboratory , McGill University , Montreal , QC , Canada. 2. b Faculty of Medicine , McGill University , Montreal , QC , Canada. 3. c Department of Ophthalmology , University of Montreal , Montreal , QC , Canada. 4. d Department of Ophthalmology , McGill University , Montreal , QC , Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is currently no clinical risk-assessment tool allowing identification of patients at risk for developing uveal melanoma (UM) who might benefit from regular screening. As a first step toward the elaboration of such a tool, we systematically reviewed UM risk factors already established by meta-analysis. METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science from their respective inception dates until July 2016 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. Eligible studies were meta-analyses or systematic reviews providing pooled odds ratios (ORs) of risk factors for UM development or sufficient information to calculate them. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. RESULTS: Four meta-analyses with a mean methodological quality score of 65.9% (min: 54.5%; max: 72.7%) were included. The following significant risk factors were identified: atypical cutaneous nevi (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.10-7.26), welding (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.20-3.51), occupational cooking (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.33-2.46), fair skin color (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.31-2.47), light eye color (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.31-2.34), common cutaneous nevi (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.27-2.39), propensity to sunburn (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.29-2.09), iris nevi (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.03-2.27), and cutaneous freckles (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.49). Non-significant factors included outdoor leisure activity, occupational sunlight exposure, latitude of birth, and hair color. CONCLUSION: Moderate quality of evidence determined nine significant risk factors for developing UM. Knowledge of these variables will assist researchers in the elaboration of a formal risk-assessment tool allowing clinicians to estimate susceptibility to the disease and necessity of regular screening.
PURPOSE: There is currently no clinical risk-assessment tool allowing identification of patients at risk for developing uveal melanoma (UM) who might benefit from regular screening. As a first step toward the elaboration of such a tool, we systematically reviewed UM risk factors already established by meta-analysis. METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science from their respective inception dates until July 2016 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. Eligible studies were meta-analyses or systematic reviews providing pooled odds ratios (ORs) of risk factors for UM development or sufficient information to calculate them. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. RESULTS: Four meta-analyses with a mean methodological quality score of 65.9% (min: 54.5%; max: 72.7%) were included. The following significant risk factors were identified: atypical cutaneous nevi (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.10-7.26), welding (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.20-3.51), occupational cooking (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.33-2.46), fair skin color (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.31-2.47), light eye color (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.31-2.34), common cutaneous nevi (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.27-2.39), propensity to sunburn (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.29-2.09), iris nevi (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.03-2.27), and cutaneous freckles (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.49). Non-significant factors included outdoor leisure activity, occupational sunlight exposure, latitude of birth, and hair color. CONCLUSION: Moderate quality of evidence determined nine significant risk factors for developing UM. Knowledge of these variables will assist researchers in the elaboration of a formal risk-assessment tool allowing clinicians to estimate susceptibility to the disease and necessity of regular screening.
Authors: A F Bais; R M Lucas; J F Bornman; C E Williamson; B Sulzberger; A T Austin; S R Wilson; A L Andrady; G Bernhard; R L McKenzie; P J Aucamp; S Madronich; R E Neale; S Yazar; A R Young; F R de Gruijl; M Norval; Y Takizawa; P W Barnes; T M Robson; S A Robinson; C L Ballaré; S D Flint; P J Neale; S Hylander; K C Rose; S-Å Wängberg; D-P Häder; R C Worrest; R G Zepp; N D Paul; R M Cory; K R Solomon; J Longstreth; K K Pandey; H H Redhwi; A Torikai; A M Heikkilä Journal: Photochem Photobiol Sci Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Małgorzata Solnik; Natalia Paduszyńska; Anna M Czarnecka; Kamil J Synoradzki; Yacoub A Yousef; Tomasz Chorągiewicz; Robert Rejdak; Mario Damiano Toro; Sandrine Zweifel; Katarzyna Dyndor; Michał Fiedorowicz Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Christine D M Roelofsen; Annemijn P A Wierenga; Sjoerd van Duinen; Robert M Verdijk; Jaco Bleeker; Marina Marinkovic; Gregorius P M Luyten; Martine J Jager Journal: Ocul Oncol Pathol Date: 2020-12-15
Authors: Pietro Valerio Foti; Mario Travali; Renato Farina; Stefano Palmucci; Corrado Spatola; Luigi Raffaele; Vincenzo Salamone; Rosario Caltabiano; Giuseppe Broggi; Lidia Puzzo; Andrea Russo; Michele Reibaldi; Antonio Longo; Paolo Vigneri; Teresio Avitabile; Giovani Carlo Ettorre; Antonio Basile Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2021-06-03
Authors: Prisca Bustamante; Thupten Tsering; Jacqueline Coblentz; Christina Mastromonaco; Mohamed Abdouh; Cristina Fonseca; Rita P Proença; Nadya Blanchard; Claude Laure Dugé; Rafaella Atherino Schmidt Andujar; Emma Youhnovska; Miguel N Burnier; Sonia A Callejo; Julia V Burnier Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-06-16
Authors: Prisca Bustamante; Denise Miyamoto; Alicia Goyeneche; Paulina García de Alba Graue; Eva Jin; Thupten Tsering; Ana Beatriz Dias; Miguel N Burnier; Julia V Burnier Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 4.452