4.2 Article

Relative survival of patients with uveal melanoma managed in a single center

Journal

MELANOMA RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 271-277

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CMR.0b013e328353ef30

Keywords

excess hazard rate; observed survival; prognostic factors; relative survival; uveal melanoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To assess the 5-year relative survival of patients diagnosed with uveal melanoma (UM) in a single center. UM patients were recruited from 1995 to 2004 (N = 155) and were followed until December 2008. Relative survival (RS) methods were used to assess excess mortality. An RS regression model was fitted by sex, age, tumor origin, treatment, and tumor size to estimate the excess hazard rate (EHR) of death from UM. The overall 5-year RS was 90%, lower in women (84.6%) than in men (100%), lower in patients older than 60 years (88.8%) compared with those younger than or of 60 years of age (94.8%). Large tumors (80.8%) showed lower RS than medium (95.1%) and small ones (98.3%). Enucleated patients (80.5%) had lower RS compared with those who received brachytherapy (93.6%) and other treatments (94.7%). A significant EHR was found for women (EHR: 3.65), patients older than 60 years (EHR: 2.25), large-sized melanoma (EHR: 2.45), and during the third (EHR: 5.37) and fourth year (EHR: 3.01) of follow-up. This is the first Spanish study in a single center reporting RS among UM patients, taking into account clinical characteristics. Prognostic factors that explained RS among UM patients were sex, age, tumor size, and the year of follow-up. We also found a peak of excess mortality from the third until the fourth year after diagnosis, which warrants strict follow-up of these patients during this time interval. Melanoma Res 22: 271-277 (C) 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available