ArticleOcular oncology and pathology2022
Improved Prognostic Precision in Uveal Melanoma through a Combined Score of Clinical Stage and Molecular Prognostication.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Uveal melanoma: ESMO-EURACAN Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.ESMO open · 2026Guideline
- Is It Possible to Preserve Vision without Compromising Metastases-Free Survival by Use of Fully Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Posterior Choroidal Melanoma?Ocular oncology and pathology · 2024Article
- Pathological and Molecular Diagnosis of Uveal Melanoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Investigating Vitreous Cytokines in Choroidal Melanoma.Cancers · 2023Article
- Digital Quantification of Intratumoral CD8+ T-Cells Predicts Relapse and Unfavorable Outcome in Uveal Melanoma.Cancers · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.