4.7 Article

PROTON BEAM RADIOTHERAPY FOR UVEAL MELANOMAS AT NICE TEACHING HOSPITAL: 16 YEARS' EXPERIENCE

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1688

Keywords

Uveal melanoma; Proton beam radiotherapy; Survival; Local control; Enucleation; Ocular complications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To present the results of uveal melanomas treated at Nice Teaching Hospital. Methods and Materials: This retrospective study included 886 consecutive patients referred to our clinic for the treatment of uveal melanomas by proton beam radiotherapy from June 1991 to December 2007. Survival rates were determined by using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and prognostic factors were evaluated using the log-rank test or Cox model. Results: The number (percent total) of subjects staged according to the TNM classification system (6th edition) of malignant tumors included 39 stage T1 (4.4%), 420 stage T2 (47.40%), 409 stage T3 (46.16%), and 18 stage T4 (2.03%) patients. The median follow-up was 63.7 months. The Kaplan-Meier overall survival rate at 5 years according to the sixth edition TNM classification was 92% for T1, 89% for T2, 67% for T3, and 62% for T4; and at 10 years, 86% for T1, 78% for T2, 43% for T3, and 41% for T4. Five factors were found to be associated with an increased death rate: advanced age, tumor thickness, largest tumor basal diameter, tumor volume, and tumor volume-to-eyeball volume ratio. The metastasis-free survival rates were 88.3 % at 5 years and 76.4 % at 10 years. The local control rates were 93.9% at 5 years and 92.1% at 10 years. The ocular conservation rates were 91.1% at 5 years and 87.3% at 10 years. Conclusions: We report the results of a large series of patients treated for uveal melanomas with a very long follow-up. Despite the large tumor volume treated, our results were similar to previously published findings relating to proton beam therapy. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available