Literature DB >> 28672400

Comparison of Alternative Tumor Size Classifications for Posterior Uveal Melanomas.

Cassandra C Skinner1, James J Augsburger1, Bret D Augsburger1, Zelia M Correa1.   

Abstract

Purpose: Determine which posterior uveal melanoma (PUM) size classification with three categories has the best prognostic discrimination.
Methods: Single-institution study of 424 consecutive patients with PUM. The tumor's largest basal diameter (LBD), smallest basal diameter (SBD), and thickness (TH) were estimated by fundus mapping and ultrasonography. Tumors were assigned to "small," "medium," or "large" size categories defined by 11 different classifications (Linear LBD, Rectangular LBD × TH, Cubic LBD × SBD × TH, Warren Original, Warren Modified, Augsburger, COMS Original, COMS Revised, TNM 2002, and modified TNM 2010 classification [a,b]). Prognostic significance of classifications was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier event curves with computation of log rank test for trend statistic.
Results: In six classification systems (Warren Original, Warren Modified, COMS Revised, TNM 2002, TNM 2010a, TNM 2010b) >50% of tumors fell within one subgroup. In the Warren Original classification <5% of tumors fell within one subgroup. Separation of Kaplan-Meier curves among three size categories was judged "excellent" in four classifications (Linear LBD, Cubic Volume, TNM 2010a, and TNM 2010b) and "very poor" in the Warren Original. Linear LBD classification was associated with highest log rank statistic value. TNM 2010a, TNM 2010b, TNM 2002, Augsburger, and Cubic Volume classifications were also determined to be quite good. Conclusions: Linear LBD classification was the best three-size category discriminator among low-, intermediate-, and high-risk subgroups. Considering our findings, it seems possible that the arduous work required to apply complex classifications, especially for three-category systems, for PUM may not be justified in routine clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28672400     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.16-20465

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  4 in total

1.  Gene Expression Profiling and PRAME Status Versus Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging for Prognostication in Uveal Melanoma.

Authors:  Louis Cai; Manuel Paez-Escamilla; Scott D Walter; Bercin Tarlan; Christina L Decatur; Barbara M Perez; J William Harbour
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-08-06       Impact factor: 5.258

2.  Relationship between clinical features, GEP class, and PRAME expression in uveal melanoma.

Authors:  Amy C Schefler; Emre Koca; Eric H Bernicker; Zelia M Correa
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Accuracy of The Cancer Genome Atlas Classification vs American Joint Committee on Cancer Classification for Prediction of Metastasis in Patients With Uveal Melanoma.

Authors:  Mehdi Mazloumi; Pornpattana Vichitvejpaisal; Lauren A Dalvin; Antonio Yaghy; Kathryn G Ewens; Arupa Ganguly; Carol L Shields
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-03-01       Impact factor: 7.389

4.  Feasibility, Method and Early Outcome of Image-Guided Volumetric Modulated Arc Radiosurgery Followed by Resection for AJCC Stage IIA-IIIB High-Risk Large Intraocular Melanoma.

Authors:  Maja Guberina; Ekaterina Sokolenko; Nika Guberina; Sami Dalbah; Christoph Pöttgen; Wolfgang Lübcke; Frank Indenkämpen; Manfred Lachmuth; Dirk Flühs; Ying Chen; Christian Hoffmann; Cornelius Deuschl; Leyla Jabbarli; Miltiadis Fiorentzis; Andreas Foerster; Philipp Rating; Melanie Ebenau; Tobias Grunewald; Nikolaos Bechrakis; Martin Stuschke
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 6.575

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.