Current clinical practice: Differential management of uveal melanoma in the era of molecular tumor analyses

Thomas M. Aaberg, Robert W. Cook, Kristen Oelschlager, Derek Maetzold, P. Kumar Rao, John O. Mason

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: Assess current clinical practices for uveal melanoma (UM) and the impact of molecular prognostic testing on treatment decisions Design: Cross-sectional survey and sequential medical records review. Participants: Ophthalmologists who treat UM. Methods: (A) Medical records review of all Medicare beneficiaries tested by UM gene expression profile in 2012, conducted under an institutional review board-approved protocol. (B) 109 ophthalmologists specializing in the treatment of UM were invited to participate in 24-question survey in 2012; 72 were invited to participate in a 23-question survey in 2014. Main outcome measures: Responses analyzed by descriptive statistics, frequency analyses (percentages, Tukey, histograms), and Fisher’s exact test. Descriptive presentation of essay answers. Results: The review of Medicare medical records included 191 evaluable patients, 88 (46%) with documented medical treatment actions or institutional policies related to surveillance plans. Of these 88, all gene expression profiling (GEP) Class 1 UM patients were treated with low-intensity surveillance. All GEP Class 2 UM patients were treated with high-intensity surveillance (P<0.0001 versus Class 1). There were 36 (19%) with information concerning referrals after initial diagnosis. Of these 36, all 23 Class 2 patients were referred to medical oncology; however, none of the 13 Class 1 patients were referred (P<0.0001 versus Class 1). Only Class 2 patients were recommended for adjunctive treatment regimens. 2012 survey: 50 respondents with an annual median of 35 new UM patients. The majority of respondents (82%) performed molecular analysis of UM tumors after fine needle biopsy (FNAB); median: 15 FNAB per year; 2014 survey: 35 respondents with an annual median of 30 new UM patients. The majority offered molecular analyses of UM tumor samples to most patients. Patients with low metastatic risk (disomy 3 or GEP Class 1) were generally assigned to less frequent (every 6 or 12 months) and less intensive clinical visits. Patients with high metastatic risk (monosomy 3 or GEP Class 2) were assigned to more frequent surveillance with hepatic imaging and liver function testing every 3–6 months. High-risk patients were considered more suitable for adjuvant treatment protocols. Conclusion: The majority of ophthalmologists treating UM have adopted molecular diagnostic tests for the purpose of designing risk-appropriate treatment strategies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2449-2460
Number of pages12
JournalClinical Ophthalmology
Volume8
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 3 2014

Keywords

  • Gene expression profiling (GEP)
  • Medicare
  • Molecular diagnostic test
  • Uveal melanoma

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Current clinical practice: Differential management of uveal melanoma in the era of molecular tumor analyses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this