Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25780931›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Development and external validation of a prognostic nomogram for metastatic uveal melanoma.

Sara Valpione, Justin C Moser, Raffaele Parrozzani, Marco Bazzi, Aaron S Mansfield, Simone Mocellin, Jacopo Pigozzo, Edoardo Midena, Svetomir N Markovic, Camillo Aliberti and 2 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Uveal Melanoma: Changing Paradigms of Treatment.Ocular oncology and pathology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Intensive Surveillance and Aggressive Multimodal Treatment for Liver Metastases From Uveal Melanoma.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Scientific reports · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Sara ValpioneMelanoma Oncology Unit, Veneto Region Oncology Research Institute (IOV-IRCCS), Padova, Italy; Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Padova, Italy.
Justin C MoserDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, US.
Raffaele ParrozzaniGB Bietti Foundation-IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Marco BazziDepartment of Statistical Sciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Aaron S MansfieldDivision of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.
Simone MocellinDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Padova, Italy.
Jacopo PigozzoMelanoma Oncology Unit, Veneto Region Oncology Research Institute (IOV-IRCCS), Padova, Italy.
Edoardo MidenaDepartment of Statistical Sciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Svetomir N MarkovicDivision of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.
Camillo AlibertiInterventional Radiology, Veneto Region Oncology Research Institute (IOV-IRCCS) Padova, Italy.
Luca G CampanaSarcoma and Melanoma Unit, Veneto Region Oncology Research Institute (IOV-IRCCS) Padova, Italy.
Vanna Chiarion-SileniMelanoma Oncology Unit, Veneto Region Oncology Research Institute (IOV-IRCCS), Padova, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately 50% of patients with uveal melanoma (UM) will develop metastatic disease, usually involving the liver. The outcome of metastatic UM (mUM) is generally poor and no standard therapy has been established. Additionally, clinicians lack a validated prognostic tool to evaluate these patients. The aim of this work was to develop a reliable prognostic nomogram for clinicians. PATIENTS AND

methodsTwo cohorts of mUM patients, from Veneto Oncology Institute (IOV) (N=152) and Mayo Clinic (MC) (N=102), were analyzed to develop and externally validate, a prognostic nomogram.

resultsThe median survival of mUM was 17.2 months in the IOV cohort and 19.7 in the MC cohort. Percentage of liver involvement (HR 1.6), elevated levels of serum LDH (HR 1.6), and a WHO performance status=1 (HR 1.5) or 2-3 (HR 4.6) were associated with worse prognosis. Longer disease-free interval from diagnosis of UM to that of mUM conferred a survival advantage (HR 0.9). The nomogram had a concordance probability of 0.75 (SE .006) in the development dataset (IOV), and 0.80 (SE .009) in the external validation (MC). Nomogram predictions were well calibrated.

conclusionsThe nomogram, which includes percentage of liver involvement, LDH levels, WHO performance status and disease free-interval accurately predicts the prognosis of mUM and could be useful for decision-making and risk stratification for clinical trials.

Indexed as

NomogramsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisSurvival AnalysisUveal Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25780931
PMCPMC4363319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.