Ezekiel Weis1,2, Kelsey Roelofs1, Matthew Larocque3, Albert Murtha4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Division of Medical Physics, Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 4. Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe our early experience with gene expression profiling (GEP) assessment for juxtafoveal, subfoveal, and peripapillary indeterminate high-risk melanocytic lesions to assist in making early treatment decisions in patients who did not feel comfortable with either close observation or definitive treatment. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients with indeterminate lesions who underwent GEP were enrolled. Nonparametric statistical analysis was utilized given the small sample size. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included in this series. Six (40%) were class 1A and 9 (60%) class 1B. Class 1A and 1B lesions had a median of three and four clinical risk factors, respectively (p = 0.27). There was no statistically significant difference for the largest basal diameter between the classes (p = 0.31); however, class 1B lesions were thicker than class 1A lesions (p = 0.03). None of the class 1A lesions showed definite growth or metastasis over a mean follow-up period of 17.1 ± 1.8 months from fine needle aspiration biopsy. All class 1B patients opted for plaque brachytherapy, and to date none of these patients have developed metastasis, with a mean follow-up of 18.7 ± 8.4 months. CONCLUSION: There may be a role for GEP assessment in high-risk, indeterminate, posteriorly located choroidal lesions to assist in treatment planning.
PURPOSE: To describe our early experience with gene expression profiling (GEP) assessment for juxtafoveal, subfoveal, and peripapillary indeterminate high-risk melanocytic lesions to assist in making early treatment decisions in patients who did not feel comfortable with either close observation or definitive treatment. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients with indeterminate lesions who underwent GEP were enrolled. Nonparametric statistical analysis was utilized given the small sample size. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included in this series. Six (40%) were class 1A and 9 (60%) class 1B. Class 1A and 1B lesions had a median of three and four clinical risk factors, respectively (p = 0.27). There was no statistically significant difference for the largest basal diameter between the classes (p = 0.31); however, class 1B lesions were thicker than class 1A lesions (p = 0.03). None of the class 1A lesions showed definite growth or metastasis over a mean follow-up period of 17.1 ± 1.8 months from fine needle aspiration biopsy. All class 1B patients opted for plaque brachytherapy, and to date none of these patients have developed metastasis, with a mean follow-up of 18.7 ± 8.4 months. CONCLUSION: There may be a role for GEP assessment in high-risk, indeterminate, posteriorly located choroidal lesions to assist in treatment planning.
Authors: Justyna Dopierala; Bertil E Damato; Sarah L Lake; Azzam F G Taktak; Sarah E Coupland Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 4.799
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: Carol L Shields; Minoru Furuta; Edwina L Berman; Jonathan D Zahler; Daniel M Hoberman; Diep H Dinh; Arman Mashayekhi; Jerry A Shields Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-08
Authors: U Petrausch; P Martus; H Tönnies; N E Bechrakis; D Lenze; S Wansel; M Hummel; N Bornfeld; E Thiel; M H Foerster; U Keilholz Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2007-03-23 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Lori A Worley; Michael D Onken; Erica Person; Diane Robirds; Julie Branson; Devron H Char; Arie Perry; J William Harbour Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: James J Augsburger; Zélia M Corrêa; Susan Schneider; Rawia S Yassin; Toni Robinson-Smith; Hormoz Ehya; Nikolaos Trichopoulos Journal: Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc Date: 2002
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: Fredy Geiger; Sadiq Said; Anahita Bajka; Mario Damiano Toro; Maximilian Robert Justus Wiest; Marc Stahel; Daniel Barthelmes; Sandrine Anne Zweifel Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Rumana N Hussain; Sarah E Coupland; Helen Kalirai; Azzam F G Taktak; Antonio Eleuteri; Bertil E Damato; Carl Groenewald; Heinrich Heimann Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 6.639