April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: a Prognostic Model and Nomogram
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Raffaele Parrozzani
    GB Bietti Foundation, IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Sara Valpione
    Melanoma Unit, Veneto Region Oncology Research Institute (IOV-IRCCS), Padova, Italy
  • Vanna Chiarion-Sileni
    Melanoma Unit, Veneto Region Oncology Research Institute (IOV-IRCCS), Padova, Italy
  • Olympia Kotsafti
    GB Bietti Foundation, IRCCS, Roma, Italy
  • Edoardo Midena
    GB Bietti Foundation, IRCCS, Roma, Italy
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Raffaele Parrozzani, None; Sara Valpione, None; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni, None; Olympia Kotsafti, None; Edoardo Midena, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 5097. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Raffaele Parrozzani, Sara Valpione, Vanna Chiarion-Sileni, Olympia Kotsafti, Edoardo Midena; Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: a Prognostic Model and Nomogram. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):5097.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify independent prognostic factors to formulate a prognostic nomogram to treat metastatic uveal melanoma patients

Methods: Prospectively recorded data of 141 patients with metastatic uveal melanoma, who received different therapy (loco-regional hepatic treatments, systemic therapy, both or no treatment) as first-line approach, were retrospectively analysed. Metastatic disease was confirmed by biopsy or fine needle aspiration cytology. The characteristics of primary uveal melanoma, the site and time of detection of metastases, the type and outcome of therapies, the time of last follow-up or death, and the cause of death were included. Data were analysed with a Cox regression model to identify prognostic factors that may influence final outcome.

Results: The median age at detection of primary uveal melanoma was 61.5 years (range, 25.3-82.5 years); metastatic disease was detected at median age of 63.6 years (range, 34.3-83.0 years) and median survival from metastasis detection was 18.5 months (range, 1.2-86.4 months). The most frequent first metastatic site was liver (79%). Patients received loco-regional hepatic treatments (12.1%), systemic therapy (39.7%), both (33.3%) or no treatment (14.9%). Liver substitution entity (hazard ratio (HR) 1.3), multiple organ involvement (HR 2.0), increasing levels of serum lactate dehydrogenases(LDH) (HR 1.8) and WHO performance status = 1 (HR 1.6) or 2-3 (HR 4.7) were associated with worse prognosis. Long disease-free interval (HR 0.9) and loco-regional treatment for liver metastases (HR 0.5) conferred a survival advantage (22.6 months) compared to systemic therapies alone (13.4 months) (p=0.038). A nomogram to predict death probability within 6, 12 and 24 months was developed (C-index=0.74).

Conclusions: Life prognosis of metastatic uveal melanoma depends on the percentage of liver involvement, spread to multiple organs, serum LDH, performance status, disease-free interval and loco-regional treatment.

Keywords: 624 oncology • 589 melanoma • 744 tumors  

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.