Andrew W Stacey1, Vaidehi S Dedania2, Miguel Materin3, Hakan Demirci4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Kellogg Eye Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
Introduction: Prognosis of uveal melanoma (UM) is assessed using clinical staging or molecular testing. Two modalities often used for prognostication are the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging and a tumor gene expression profile (GEP), the outcomes of which are often discordant. This article discusses a total risk score created to combine the discordant information from both sources. Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted of all patients presenting with UM over 6 years to 2 referral centers. Each tumor was classified using the AJCC and the GEP. A total risk score was calculated for each patient using results from both AJCC and GEP. Kaplan-Meier analysis of metastasis-free survival was used to compare groups. Results: A total of 294 patients were included in the study. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed significant curve separation between individual AJCC and GEP risk groups. The combined total risk score provided an accurate estimate of prognosis that incorporated results from both AJCC and GEP. Conclusions: Clinical staging and molecular prognostication of UM can be discordant. There is important information provided by each system that is not provided by the other. The total risk score provides a simple method to combine information from both AJCC stage and the GEP class in order to provide patients and care teams with a more complete understanding of metastatic risk.
Introduction: Prognosis of uveal melanoma (UM) is assessed using clinical staging or molecular testing. Two modalities often used for prognostication are the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging and a tumor gene expression profile (GEP), the outcomes of which are often discordant. This article discusses a total risk score created to combine the discordant information from both sources. Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted of all patients presenting with UM over 6 years to 2 referral centers. Each tumor was classified using the AJCC and the GEP. A total risk score was calculated for each patient using results from both AJCC and GEP. Kaplan-Meier analysis of metastasis-free survival was used to compare groups. Results: A total of 294 patients were included in the study. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed significant curve separation between individual AJCC and GEP risk groups. The combined total risk score provided an accurate estimate of prognosis that incorporated results from both AJCC and GEP. Conclusions: Clinical staging and molecular prognostication of UM can be discordant. There is important information provided by each system that is not provided by the other. The total risk score provides a simple method to combine information from both AJCC stage and the GEP class in order to provide patients and care teams with a more complete understanding of metastatic risk.
Authors: Carol L Shields; Emil Anthony T Say; Murat Hasanreisoglu; Jarin Saktanasate; Brendan M Lawson; Jeffrey E Landy; Anjali U Badami; Meera D Sivalingam; Arman Mashayekhi; Jerry A Shields; Arupa Ganguly Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Carol L Shields; Arupa Ganguly; Carlos G Bianciotto; Kiran Turaka; Ali Tavallali; Jerry A Shields Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Michael D Onken; Lori A Worley; Devron H Char; James J Augsburger; Zelia M Correa; Eric Nudleman; Thomas M Aaberg; Michael M Altaweel; David S Bardenstein; Paul T Finger; Brenda L Gallie; George J Harocopos; Peter G Hovland; Hugh D McGowan; Tatyana Milman; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; E Rand Simpson; Morton E Smith; David J Wilson; William J Wirostko; J William Harbour Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-04-21 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: Hakan Demirci; Leslie M Niziol; Zeynep Ozkurt; Naziha Slimani; Cem Ozgonul; Tiffany Liu; David C Musch; Miguel Materin Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Kristen Meldi Plasseraud; Robert W Cook; Tony Tsai; Yevgeniy Shildkrot; Brooke Middlebrook; Derek Maetzold; Jeff Wilkinson; John Stone; Clare Johnson; Kristen Oelschlager; Thomas M Aaberg Journal: J Oncol Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 4.375