Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35356606›Full record

ArticleOcular oncology and pathology2022

Improved Prognostic Precision in Uveal Melanoma through a Combined Score of Clinical Stage and Molecular Prognostication.

Andrew W Stacey, Vaidehi S Dedania, Miguel Materin, Hakan Demirci

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ocular oncology and pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Pathological and Molecular Diagnosis of Uveal Melanoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Andrew W StaceyDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Vaidehi S DedaniaDepartment of Ophthalmology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Miguel MaterinDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Hakan DemirciDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Kellogg Eye Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

American Joint Committee on cancerCancer stagingChoroidal melanomaGene expression profilePrognosisPrognosticationUveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID35356606
PMCPMC8914271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.