ArticleOcular oncology and pathology2024
Expert Opinions on Uveal Melanoma: Insights from the 58th Ophthalmic Oncology Group Meeting.
Article in Ocular oncology and pathology, 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.
- Threshold analysis of mortality outcomes in the collaborative ocular melanoma study (COMS).Melanoma management · 2025Article
- Twelve reasons delays in uveal melanoma treatment might affect prognosis.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Clinical decision-making for uveal melanoma radiotherapy: comparative performance of experienced radiation oncologists and leading generative AI models.Frontiers in oncology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Clear evidence for the best clinical management of uveal melanoma is lacking in some areas. Therefore, reports on expert opinions in the field can be valuable. Methods: A questionnaire comprising 10 questions was distributed to potential participants of the 58th Ophthalmic Oncology Group Meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, in June 2024. Results: Among 34 respondents, 13 (38%) had >20 years of postresidency experience in ophthalmic oncology. The maximum recommended tumor thickness for ruthenium-106 plaque brachytherapy was 5.7 mm (SD 1.1). Twenty-three respondents (68%) indicated that radiological surveillance for metastatic disease should be conducted irrespective of primary tumor characteristics. A majority (74%) would treat a lesion with a 6 mm diameter and 1.5 mm thickness without waiting for evidence of growth if sufficient risk factors were present. Most experts did not currently recommend sampling of circulating tumor DNA or circulating tumor cells. There were no significant differences in responses based on the experience of respondents (≤20 vs. >20 years) or their annual volume of new cases (≤50 vs. >50). Conclusion: This article reports the opinions of 34 experts in ophthalmic oncology on various contemporary topics in uveal melanoma. The responses illustrate both agreements and differences in opinions among experts.
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.