ArticleCancers2024
Survival Benefit of Primary Tumor Treatment in Uveal Melanoma: A Re-Analysis of the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) and Natural History Study (NHS) Cohorts.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metastatic potential of small posterior uveal melanomas.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Independent validation of time to treatment as a prognostic factor in uveal melanoma.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Twelve reasons delays in uveal melanoma treatment might affect prognosis.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether primary tumor treatment provides a survival benefit in uveal melanoma by comparing patients who declined treatment (Natural History Study, NHS) with those who received treatment in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) for medium-sized choroidal melanomas.
methodsIndividual-level survival data were reverse-engineered from cumulative all-cause mortality curves in the original COMS and NHS publications. Censoring patterns were estimated from numbers at risk and descriptive statistics. A Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.017 was applied. Additionally, to ensure a conservative approach, NHS cohort data were iteratively adjusted by reducing the 8-year cumulative mortality by one percentage point if the Cox regression hazard ratio for all-cause mortality, the unadjusted risk ratio for death, and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the Kaplan-Meier curves did not show a smaller survival difference than originally reported.
resultsKaplan-Meier analysis revealed significantly higher cumulative mortality in the NHS cohort compared to the COMS cohort (log-rank
conclusionsIn this re-evaluation, patients who declined treatment for medium-sized choroidal melanomas had significantly worse survival, suggesting a potential survival benefit of primary tumor treatment.
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.