4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Variates of survival in metastatic uveal melanoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 31, Pages 8076-8080

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.6534

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The course and outcome of metastatic uveal melanoma are not well described. We evaluated the survival of our patients with metastatic uveal melanoma, described factors that correlated with survival, and evaluated the influence of screening tests on time of detection and survival. Patients and Methods All patients with metastatic uveal melanoma seen at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center between 1994 and 2004 were identified from our database. We recorded date of initial diagnosis, date of metastatic disease, date of last follow-up, site of the first metastasis, how the first metastasis was discovered, treatment, and outcome of therapy. Results The estimated median survival of the 119 patients analyzed was 12.5 months; 22% of patients were alive at 4 years. Five variates correlated independently with prolonged survival: Lung/soft tissue as only site of first metastasis, treatment with surgery or intrahepatic therapy, female sex, age younger than 60, and a longer interval from initial diagnosis to metastatic disease. Discovering metastatic disease in asymptomatic patients did not correlate with overall survival; 89% of patients had a single organ as the site of first metastasis. Although liver was the most common site, 39.5% of patients had nonliver sites, most commonly lung, as the first site of metastasis. Conclusion A substantial subset of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma survive more than 4 years with metastatic disease. Data on variates of survival and site of first metastasis may guide strategies for screening patients, although our data failed to show a survival advantage in discovering asymptomatic metastatic disease.

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