September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Prognostic Comparison of Tumor Size Classifications of Posterior Uveal Melanoma
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • James J Augsburger
    Ophthalmology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
  • Zelia M Correa
    Ophthalmology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   James Augsburger, None; Zelia Correa, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, NY (Unrestricted Grant to Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati [James J. Augsburger, Chairman when grant was received])
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 5900. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      James J Augsburger, Zelia M Correa; Prognostic Comparison of Tumor Size Classifications of Posterior Uveal Melanoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):5900.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose : To determine and compare the effectiveness of multiple published tumor size classifications of posterior melanomas as prognostic discriminators between small, medium, and large tumors.

Methods : Retrospective analysis of published classifications of posterior uveal melanoma [PUM] size (largest basal diameter [LBD] classification; rectangular area [LBD x thickness] classification; cubic volume [LBD x smallest basal diameter [SBD] x TH] classification; Warren classification; modified Warren classification; Gass classification; Augsburger classification; COMS original classification; COMS modified classification; TNM 2002 classification; TNM 2010 classification). 438 biopsy-confirmed PUMs encountered in our practice 9/2007 - 7/2015 were categorized as small, medium, or large by each of the evaluated classifications. A frequency distribution of small, medium and large tumors was computed for each classification, and a metastasis-free survival curve was computed for the patients having a primary intraocular tumor of the 3 size categories for each classification. The evaluated tumor size classifications were ranked from highest to lowest prognostic significance for emergence of metastasis with regard to the logrank test statistic associated with each classification.

Results : The 438 patients ranged in age from 4 to 99 years (mean 61.9 yr, std. dev. 14.3 yr). The tumor was exclusively choroidal in 315 (71.9%) and involved the ciliary body in 123 (28.1%). The LBD of the tumor ranged from 5 to 24 mm (mean 12.2 mm, std. dev. 3.7 mm) and tumor thickness ranged from 1.5 to 18 mm (mean 5.7 mm, std. dev. 3.1 mm). The prognostic tumor size classifications were ranked as follows: (1) LBD classification; (2) TNM 2010 classification; (3) TNM 2002 classification; (4) modified Warren classification; (5) cubic volume classification; (6) Gass classification; (7) COMS revised classification; (8) COMS original classification; (9) Augsburger classification; (10) rectangular area classification; and (11) Warren original classification.

Conclusions : In this study, the TNM 2010 classification and LBD classification provided the best separation between prognostic subgroups. However, classifications that do not require reference to a size category boundaries graph for individual tumor size categorization (e.g., LBD classification, cubic volume classification) are much easier to use than ones that do (e.g., TNM and COMS classifications).

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.


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.