Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36925732›Full record

ArticleOcular oncology and pathology2023

Comparative Metastatic Rates in GEP Class 1A versus 1B Posterior Uveal Melanoma: Results Contrary to Expectations.

James J Augsburger, Cassandra C Skinner, Zelia M Correa

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ocular oncology and pathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

James J AugsburgerOcular Oncology Service, Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Cassandra C SkinnerCole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Zelia M CorreaOcular Oncology Service, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USUniversity of Cincinnati Medical Center · USUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the metastatic rates in patients with gene expression profile (GEP) class 1A versus 1B posterior uveal malignant melanoma supported or contradicted predictions of very low metastatic rate in GEP 1A cases and moderate rate in GEP 1B cases. Patients/Methods: 164 patients with a cytopathologically confirmed primary posterior uveal malignant melanoma classified by GEP testing as class 1 (100 GEP 1A, 64 GEP 1B) were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier rates of metastasis were computed and plotted for the GEP class 1 subgroups. Median follow-up of patients who were still alive without metastasis on the date of data analysis was 100.5 months for the GEP 1A patients and 97.2 months for the GEP 1B patients. Results: The actuarial 5-year rate of uveal melanoma metastasis was 10.8% (std. error = 3.2%) in the GEP 1A patients versus 0% in the GEP 1B patients, and the actuarial 10-year rate of metastasis was 12.2% (std. error = 3.5%) in the GEP 1A patients versus 2.1% (std. error 2.1%) in the GEP 1B patients. Conclusion: The results of this retrospective single-center study cast doubt on the validity of the prognostic stratification of GEP class 1 posterior uveal malignant melanomas into very low risk (GEP 1A) versus intermediate risk (GEP 1B) of metastasis subgroups provided by the commercially available GEP test.

Indexed as

Cancer prognosisGene expression profileUveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID36925732
PMCPMC10013492
OpenAlexW4293843179

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.