Guy S Negretti1, Sarega Gurudas2, Beatrice Gallo3, Bertil Damato3, Amit K Arora3, Sobha Sivaprasad2, Mandeep S Sagoo3,2. 1. Department of Ocular Oncology, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK. g.negretti@nhs.net. 2. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College London Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK. 3. Department of Ocular Oncology, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine survival outcomes following enucleation for uveal melanoma. To compare these outcomes with the 8th edition AJCC classification and determine the influence of cytogenetics, using Fluorescent in situ Hybridisation (FISH), on survival. To determine whether failure to gain sufficient sample for cytogenetics using Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy (FNAB) correlates with survival. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: All patients undergoing primary enucleation for uveal melanoma at Moorfields Eye Hospital between 2012 and 2015 were included. Clinical, pathological, cytological and survival data were analysed for all patients. RESULTS: In total, 155 subjects were included. Mean age at enucleation was 65.9 years (SD 14.13). 88 (56.8%) patients died at a mean of three (SD 1.9) years following enucleation. Of these, 52 (33.5%) died from metastatic melanoma, 16 (10.3%) from other causes and 20 (12.9%) causes of death were unknown. Cumulative incidence analysis demonstrated AJCC grade, chromosome 8q gain and monosomy three all predict metastatic mortality. The greatest 5-year mortality rate (62%, SD10.1%) was in those with both chromosome abnormalities and AJCC stage III (Stage IV patients excluded due to low numbers). Largest basal diameter and chromosome status, both independently (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001) predicted metastatic mortality on multivariable regression analysis. Those who had an insufficient sample of cells gained during FNAB (n = 16) had no different prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms, in this population, the poor survival of patients enucleated for uveal melanomas. It confirms the prognostic utility of adding AJCC grade to cytogenetic information. It demonstrates that the lack of sample in patients undergoing FNAB is not related to prognosis.
OBJECTIVES: To determine survival outcomes following enucleation for uveal melanoma. To compare these outcomes with the 8th edition AJCC classification and determine the influence of cytogenetics, using Fluorescent in situ Hybridisation (FISH), on survival. To determine whether failure to gain sufficient sample for cytogenetics using Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy (FNAB) correlates with survival. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: All patients undergoing primary enucleation for uveal melanoma at Moorfields Eye Hospital between 2012 and 2015 were included. Clinical, pathological, cytological and survival data were analysed for all patients. RESULTS: In total, 155 subjects were included. Mean age at enucleation was 65.9 years (SD 14.13). 88 (56.8%) patients died at a mean of three (SD 1.9) years following enucleation. Of these, 52 (33.5%) died from metastatic melanoma, 16 (10.3%) from other causes and 20 (12.9%) causes of death were unknown. Cumulative incidence analysis demonstrated AJCC grade, chromosome 8q gain and monosomy three all predict metastatic mortality. The greatest 5-year mortality rate (62%, SD10.1%) was in those with both chromosome abnormalities and AJCC stage III (Stage IV patients excluded due to low numbers). Largest basal diameter and chromosome status, both independently (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001) predicted metastatic mortality on multivariable regression analysis. Those who had an insufficient sample of cells gained during FNAB (n = 16) had no different prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms, in this population, the poor survival of patients enucleated for uveal melanomas. It confirms the prognostic utility of adding AJCC grade to cytogenetic information. It demonstrates that the lack of sample in patients undergoing FNAB is not related to prognosis.
Authors: Thomas van den Bosch; Jackelien G M van Beek; Jolanda Vaarwater; Robert M Verdijk; Nicole C Naus; Dion Paridaens; Annelies de Klein; Emine Kiliç Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Mehmet Dogrusöz; Mette Bagger; Sjoerd G van Duinen; Wilma G Kroes; Claudia A L Ruivenkamp; Stefan Böhringer; Klaus Kaae Andersen; Gregorius P M Luyten; Jens F Kiilgaard; Martine J Jager Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Bertil Damato; Catherine Duke; Sarah E Coupland; Paul Hiscott; Peter A Smith; Ian Campbell; Angela Douglas; Peter Howard Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2007-08-27 Impact factor: 12.079
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: Mette Bagger; Morten T Andersen; Klaus K Andersen; Steffen Heegaard; Mette K Andersen; Jens F Kiilgaard Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Tammy M Beran; Tara A McCannel; Annette L Stanton; Bradley R Straatsma; Barry L Burgess Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Armin R Afshar; Bertil E Damato; Jay M Stewart; Lydia B Zablotska; Ritu Roy; Adam B Olshen; Nancy M Joseph; Boris C Bastian Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 3.283