ArticleActa ophthalmologica2026
Prognosis and determinants of survival after orbital exenteration for conjunctival melanoma: Experiences from a Dutch Referral Centre.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prognosis and determinants of survival after orbital exenteration for conjunctival melanoma: Experiences from a Dutch Referral Centre.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the prognosis and determinants of survival after orbital exenteration in patients with conjunctival melanoma (CoM).
methodsIn a retrospective study, 27 consecutive patients who underwent exenteration for CoM from 2001 to 2023 were included. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and their risk factors were analysed.
resultsThe mean follow-up time since orbital exenteration was 42 ± 37 months. Eyelid sparing orbital exenteration was achieved in 24 patients (89%). Two patients (7%) developed local recurrences. Seven patients (26%) developed distant metastasis resulting in a metastasis-free survival of 100% at 1 year and 63% at 5 years. The PFS was 100% and 63% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The OS for 1, 5 and 10 years was 92, 57 and 31%, respectively. Presence of recurrences prior to exenteration and longer time from diagnosis to exenteration were related to worse OS (both p = 0.02). Presence of metastasis prior to exenteration, orbital invasion and tumour-containing resection margins were related to a worse PFS at 5 years (p = 0.03, p = 0.03 and p = 0.02, respectively).
conclusionFor CoM patients treated with orbital exenteration, the presence of metastases and recurrences prior to exenteration, longer time from diagnosis to exenteration, orbital invasion and tumour-containing resection margins are unfavourable prognostic factors. Our study demonstrates relatively favourable outcomes, with no difference in survival between eyelid sparing or eyelid removing techniques, calling to consider orbital exenteration for advanced CoM cases when other (newer) therapies are not applicable.
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.