4.4 Article

CLINICAL SPECTRUM AND PROGNOSIS OF UVEAL MELANOMA BASED ON AGE AT PRESENTATION IN 8,033 CASES

Journal

RETINA-THE JOURNAL OF RETINAL AND VITREOUS DISEASES
Volume 32, Issue 7, Pages 1363-1372

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e31824d09a8

Keywords

eye; uvea; melanoma; children; pediatric; metastasis; prognosis

Categories

Funding

  1. Wills Eye Foundation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  2. New York, NY
  3. Eye Tumor Research Foundation, Philadelphia, PA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate clinical features and life prognosis of uveal melanoma based on age at presentation. Design: Retrospective, nonrandomized, interventional case series. Results: Of 8,033 eyes with uveal melanoma, 106 (1%) were in young patients (<= 20 years), 4,287 (53%) in mid adults (21-60 years), and 3,640 (45%) in older adults (>60 years). Based on age (young, mid adults, and older adults) at presentation, tumor epicenter was located in iris (21, 4, 2%; P < 0.0001), ciliary body (8, 5, and 7%; P = 0.0225), or choroid (71, 91, and 90%; P < 0.0001). Mean tumor diameter (10.2, 10.8, 11.5 mm; P < 0.0001), mean tumor thickness (5.0, 5.3, 5.7 mm; P < 0.0001), and extraocular extension (1, 2, and 4%; P = 0.0004) increased with age. Kaplan-Meier estimates of tumor-related metastasis at 3, 5, 10, and 20 years were 2%, 9%, 9%, and 20% in young patients (P < 0.011); 6%, 12%, 23%, and 34% in mid adults (P < 0.0001); and 11%, 19%, 28%, and 39% in older adults. Kaplan-Meier estimate of tumor-related death at 3, 5, 10, and 20 years were 0%, 2%, 5%, and 17% in young patients (P = 0.08); 3%, 6%, 11%, and 17% in mid adults (P < 0.001); and 7%, 11%, 16%, and 20% in older adults. Conclusion: Compared with mid adults and older adults, young patients manifested a higher proportion of iris melanoma. Compared with older adults, young and mid adults showed smaller melanoma basal dimension and lower tumor-related metastasis and death. RETINA 32:1363-1372, 2012

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available