Brandon T Nguyen1, Ryan S Kim1,2, Maria E Bretana1, Eric Kegley1, Amy C Schefler3,4. 1. Retina Consultants of Houston, 6560 Fannin Street, Suite 750, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 2. McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Retina Consultants of Houston, 6560 Fannin Street, Suite 750, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. acsmd@houstonretina.com. 4. Blanton Eye Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. acsmd@houstonretina.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between traditional clinical high-risk features of uveal melanoma patients and gene expression profile (GEP). METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, case series of patients with uveal melanoma. Eighty-three patients met inclusion criteria for the study. Patients were examined for the following clinical risk factors: drusen/retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) changes, vascularity on B-scan, internal reflectivity on A-scan, subretinal fluid (SRF), orange pigment, apical tumor height/thickness, and largest basal dimensions (LBD). A novel point system was created to grade the high-risk clinical features of each tumor. Further analyses were performed to assess the degree of association between GEP and each individual risk factor, total clinical risk score, vascularity, internal reflectivity, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor stage classification, apical tumor height/thickness, and LBD. RESULTS: Of the 83 total patients, 41 were classified as GEP class 1A, 17 as class 1B, and 25 as class 2. The presence of orange pigment, SRF, low internal reflectivity and vascularity on ultrasound, and apical tumor height/thickness ≥ 2 mm were not statistically significantly associated with GEP class. Lack of drusen/RPE changes demonstrated a trend toward statistical association with GEP class 2 compared to class 1A/1B. LBD and advancing AJCC stage was statistically associated with higher GEP class. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, AJCC stage classification and LBD were the only clinical features statistically associated with GEP class. Clinicians should use caution when inferring the growth potential of melanocytic lesions solely from traditional funduscopic and ultrasonographic risk factors without GEP data.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between traditional clinical high-risk features of uveal melanomapatients and gene expression profile (GEP). METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, case series of patients with uveal melanoma. Eighty-three patients met inclusion criteria for the study. Patients were examined for the following clinical risk factors: drusen/retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) changes, vascularity on B-scan, internal reflectivity on A-scan, subretinal fluid (SRF), orange pigment, apical tumor height/thickness, and largest basal dimensions (LBD). A novel point system was created to grade the high-risk clinical features of each tumor. Further analyses were performed to assess the degree of association between GEP and each individual risk factor, total clinical risk score, vascularity, internal reflectivity, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor stage classification, apical tumor height/thickness, and LBD. RESULTS: Of the 83 total patients, 41 were classified as GEP class 1A, 17 as class 1B, and 25 as class 2. The presence of orange pigment, SRF, low internal reflectivity and vascularity on ultrasound, and apical tumor height/thickness ≥ 2 mm were not statistically significantly associated with GEP class. Lack of drusen/RPE changes demonstrated a trend toward statistical association with GEP class 2 compared to class 1A/1B. LBD and advancing AJCC stage was statistically associated with higher GEP class. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, AJCC stage classification and LBD were the only clinical features statistically associated with GEP class. Clinicians should use caution when inferring the growth potential of melanocytic lesions solely from traditional funduscopic and ultrasonographic risk factors without GEP data.
Entities:
Keywords:
Choroid; Gene expression profile; Melanoma; Neoplasia; Pathology; Treatment surgery
Authors: J William Harbour; Michael D Onken; Elisha D O Roberson; Shenghui Duan; Li Cao; Lori A Worley; M Laurin Council; Katie A Matatall; Cynthia Helms; Anne M Bowcock Journal: Science Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Carol L Shields; Minoru Furuta; Archana Thangappan; Saya Nagori; Arman Mashayekhi; David R Lally; Cecilia C Kelly; Danielle S Rudich; Anand V Nagori; Oojwala A Wakade; Sonul Mehta; Lauren Forte; Andrew Long; Elaina F Dellacava; Bonnie Kaplan; Jerry A Shields Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-08
Authors: Scott D Walter; Daniel L Chao; William Feuer; Joyce Schiffman; Devron H Char; J William Harbour Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Walter van Gils; Elisabeth M Lodder; Hanneke W Mensink; Emine Kiliç; Nicole C Naus; Hennie T Brüggenwirth; Wilfred van Ijcken; Dion Paridaens; Gregorius P Luyten; Annelies de Klein Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-06-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Duncan E Berry; Amy C Schefler; Michael I Seider; Miguel Materin; Sandra Stinnett; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya Journal: Retina Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: J William Harbour; Manuel Paez-Escamilla; Louis Cai; Scott D Walter; James J Augsburger; Zelia M Correa Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Eszter Szalai; Yi Jiang; Natasha M van Poppelen; Martine J Jager; Annelies de Klein; Emine Kilic; Hans E Grossniklaus Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Duncan E Berry; Amy C Schefler; Michael I Seider; Miguel Materin; Sandra Stinnett; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya Journal: Retina Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.975