ArticleBMC cancer2026
Independent validation of time to treatment as a prognostic factor in uveal melanoma.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Misdiagnosis of uveal melanoma and other intraocular malignancies in enucleated eyes: a 28-year national review.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2026Article
- Treatment Delay and Risk of Orbital Exenteration in Periocular Sebaceous Carcinoma.Ocular oncology and pathology · 2026Article
- Comparison of MOLES and MelCancers · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn earlier study suggested that longer intervals between diagnosis and treatment of uveal melanoma are associated with worse prognosis. We evaluated whether a similar association could be observed in an independent cohort.
methodsRetrospective cohort of 336 patients with posterior uveal melanoma treated at a single referral center (2000–2011), assembled by investigators independent of the original report. We compared disease-specific (DSS) and overall survival (OS) across prespecified diagnosis-to-treatment intervals (≤ 15, 30, 45 days) using cumulative-incidence (Gray’s) and Kaplan–Meier analyses (unmatched and propensity-matched). Fine–Gray regression with treatment day as time zero estimated the subdistribution hazard ratio per 10-day delay.
resultsTumor size and stage at diagnosis did not differ between patients treated within 30 days (prompt) and those treated after 30 days (delayed). In competing-risk analysis, delayed treatment was associated with a higher cumulative incidence of metastatic death. Kaplan–Meier OS—but not DSS—differed significantly between prompt and delayed treatment. A model of exponential tumor growth indicated that deferring treatment of a lesion of a medium-sized tumor by one month is associated with an estimated absolute increase in the 10-year competing-risk incidence of metastatic death by ≈ 0.8%.
conclusionsWhile treatment delay is unlikely to be among the strongest prognostic factors in uveal melanoma, this independent validation cohort supports an association between diagnosis-to-treatment intervals beyond about one month and worse survival.
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.