Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37894391›Full record

ArticleCancers2023

Surveillance for Metastasis in High-Risk Uveal Melanoma Patients: Standard versus Enhanced Protocols.

Yağmur Seda Yeşiltaş, Emily C Zabor, Jacquelyn Wrenn, Zackery Oakey, Arun D Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Yağmur Seda YeşiltaşDepartment of Ophthalmic Oncology, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Emily C ZaborDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1402-4498
Jacquelyn WrennDepartment of Ophthalmic Oncology, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Zackery OakeyBlue Coast Retina, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Irvine, CA 92618, USA.
Arun D SinghDepartment of Ophthalmic Oncology, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9411-0320

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeto evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced surveillance protocols (EP) utilizing high frequency (HF) or enhanced modality (EM) compared to the standard protocol (SP) in detecting metastasis and determining their impact on overall survival (OS) in high-risk uveal melanoma (UM) patients.

methodsA total of 87 consecutive patients with Class 2 (high risk) primary UM were enrolled, with negative baseline systemic staging. The patients underwent systemic surveillance with either SP (hepatic ultrasonography [US] every 6 months) or EP (either HF [US every 3 months] or EM [incorporation hepatic computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging]) following informed discussion. The main outcome measures were largest diameter of largest hepatic metastasis (LDLM), number of hepatic metastatic lesions, time to detection of metastasis (TDM), and OS.

resultsThis study revealed significant differences in LDLM between surveillance protocols, with the use of EP detecting smaller metastatic lesions (HF, EM, and SP were 1.5 cm, 1.6 cm, and 6.1 cm, respectively). Patients on the EM protocol had a lower 24-month cumulative incidence of >3 cm metastasis (3.5% EM vs. 39% SP;

conclusionsEnhanced surveillance protocols improved early detection of hepatic metastasis in UM patients but did not translate into a survival advantage in our study cohort. However, early detection of metastasis in patients receiving liver-directed therapies may lead to improved overall survival.

Indexed as

liver metastasissurveillancesurvivaluveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID37894391
PMCPMC10605386

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.