4.4 Article

Mortality after uveal and conjunctival melanoma: which tumour is more deadly?

期刊

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA
卷 87, 期 2, 页码 149-153

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2008.01369.x

关键词

conjunctival neoplasms; metastasis; mortality; uveal neoplasms

资金

  1. Eye and Tissue Bank Foundation
  2. Eye Foundation
  3. Research Foundation of the Orion Corporation
  4. Instrumentarium Science Foundation
  5. Sigrid JusElius Foundation
  6. Biomedicum Helsinki Foundation
  7. Evald & Hilda Nissi Foundation
  8. Finnish Medical Foundation
  9. Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Finland [TYH 3203, TYH 5210]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aimed to model and compare mortality rates for uveal melanoma (UM) and conjunctival melanoma (CM) by adjusting for differences in tumour size and local recurrence. Population-based mortality data for 240 and 85 patients with primary UM and CM and 91 and 23 patients with disseminated UM and CM, respectively, were compared with cumulative incidence analysis. Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression with time-dependent variables was used to adjust for differences in tumour diameter, thickness and recurrence rates. The 10-year cumulative incidences of metastatic death from UM and CM were 39% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33-45) and 32% (95% CI 21-44), respectively. After adjusting for tumour size, risk of death from CM was higher than from UM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.9; p = 0.039). Additional adjustment for more frequent local recurrence of CM diminished the difference (HR 1.5; p = 0.25). Survival periods after systemic metastasis of UM and CM were comparable (median 8 months). Clinical observations show longer survival after primary CM than after primary UM. This reflects the smaller average size of CM. However, a primary CM of a given size is more deadly than a UM of equivalent size because primary CM tends to recur after treatment and, possibly, because additional lymphatic dissemination occurs with CM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据