ArticleMelanoma research2025
Impact of systemic imaging surveillance on survival from metastatic uveal melanoma.
Article in Melanoma research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommended surveillance imaging intervals for uveal melanoma (UM) based on the risk of distant metastasis. The objective of this research is to evaluate if patients, treated at our tertiary cancer center, who had scans consistent with these guidelines, had improved overall survival (OS). This was a single-center, retrospective study of UM patients, who developed metastatic disease. Patients were grouped into risk-of-metastasis cohorts (low, medium, and high-risk) based on the UM NCCN guidelines v1.2023. The frequency of scans was reported within annual intervals for 5 years within the low-risk cohort and for 10 years within the medium-risk cohort, and within 6-month intervals for the first 5 years and then annually in years 6-10 within the high-risk cohort. Conditional landmark analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between OS and consistency with guidelines. Scan frequency was evaluated against socioeconomic status. Of the 740 UM patients identified (1997-2020), 110 experienced metastasis and comprised our analysis population (20 low-risk; 67 medium-risk; and 23 high-risk). The median time to death (95% confidence interval) from diagnosis of metastasis was similar between the low, medium, and high-risk cohorts at 1.2 (1.0, 2.0), 2.0 (1.7, 2.6), and 1.6 (1.3, 2.3) years, respectively. For each cohort, the OS results were similar between those who followed guidelines vs. not at each annual landmark time. Living in disadvantaged areas did not impact imaging frequency (all P > 0.05). Imaging at intervals outlined by the NCCN guidelines v1.2023 did not impact OS for patients who developed metastatic UM.
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.