Acta ophthalmologica · 2022
A prognostic classification system for uveal melanoma based on a combination of patient age and sex, the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Cancer Genome Atlas models.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gill Viktor T, Sabazade Shiva, Herrspiegel Christina, Ewens Kathryn G, Opalko Adrianna, Dan Nicole, Christersdottir Tinna, Berg Rendahl Alexander, Shields Carol L, Seregard Stefan, Ganguly Arupa, Stålhammar Gustav
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To revisit the independent importance of ciliary body involvement (CBI), monosomy 3 (M3), tumour size, histological and clinical factors in uveal melanoma (UM) and to devise a new prognostic classification based on a combination of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) models.
METHODS: Two cohorts with a total of 1796 patients were included. Clinicopathological factors were compared between patients with and without CBI and M3. Development of the prognostic classification was performed in a training cohort and was then tested in two independent validation cohorts.
RESULTS: Tumours with CBI were more common in women, had greater apical thickness, greater basal tumour diameter, greater rates of vasculogenic mimicry and greater rates of M3, were more often asymptomatic at diagnosis and had poorer 5- and 10-year globe conservation rates (p < 0.023). In multivariate logistic regression, patient age at diagnosis, tumour diameter and CBI were independent predictors of M3 (p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox regression, male sex, age at diagnosis, tumour diameter, M3 and CBI were independent predictors of metastasis. The proposed prognostic classification combined patient age, sex, CBI, extraocular extension, M3, 8q (optional) and tumour size, and demonstrated greater prognostic acumen than both AJCC 4 T categories and TCGA groups A to D in validation cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: Tumour size does not confound the prognostic implication of CBI, M3, male sex and age at diagnosis in UM. These factors were included in a new prognostic classification that outperforms AJCC T category and TCGA groups.
METHODS: Two cohorts with a total of 1796 patients were included. Clinicopathological factors were compared between patients with and without CBI and M3. Development of the prognostic classification was performed in a training cohort and was then tested in two independent validation cohorts.
RESULTS: Tumours with CBI were more common in women, had greater apical thickness, greater basal tumour diameter, greater rates of vasculogenic mimicry and greater rates of M3, were more often asymptomatic at diagnosis and had poorer 5- and 10-year globe conservation rates (p < 0.023). In multivariate logistic regression, patient age at diagnosis, tumour diameter and CBI were independent predictors of M3 (p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox regression, male sex, age at diagnosis, tumour diameter, M3 and CBI were independent predictors of metastasis. The proposed prognostic classification combined patient age, sex, CBI, extraocular extension, M3, 8q (optional) and tumour size, and demonstrated greater prognostic acumen than both AJCC 4 T categories and TCGA groups A to D in validation cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: Tumour size does not confound the prognostic implication of CBI, M3, male sex and age at diagnosis in UM. These factors were included in a new prognostic classification that outperforms AJCC T category and TCGA groups.