Evidence Hub

Improved Staging of Ciliary Body and Choroidal Melanomas Based on Estimation of Tumor Volume and Competing Risk Analyses

Stålhammar G, Coupland SE, Ewens KG, Ganguly A, Heimann H, Shields CL, Damato B

Ophthalmology, 2024

6,528 participants · 28 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: The current, 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) anatomic classification and staging model for uveal melanoma does not fully separate survival estimates for patients with advanced stages of the disease (e.g., IIIB and IIIC). Furthermore, some tumors in higher size categories have a smaller volume than tumors in lower categories. Therefore, we developed a novel model for prognostication of metastatic mortality based on estimations of tumor volume.

DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter case series of patients with uveal melanoma involving the choroid, ciliary body, or both.

PARTICIPANTS: Six thousand five hundred twenty-eight consecutively registered patients treated at 3 tertiary ocular oncology centers on 2 continents between 1981 and 2022.

METHODS: Data on survival, tumor size, and extent were collected for all 6528 patients. Tumor volume was estimated using a simple equation based on largest basal diameter and thickness. Volume-based size categories and stages were developed and validated in independent patient cohorts using competing risk analyses, and correlations with cytogenetic and cytomorphologic features were examined.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cumulative incidence of metastatic death.

RESULTS: The 6528 patients were distributed over 7 stages based on estimated tumor volume and anatomic extent (V stages IA, IB, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC), with a 15-year incidence of metastatic death ranging from 7% to 77%. A new category, V1min, and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 6,528 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free