Effectiveness of Treatments for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma

James J. Augsburger, Zelia Correa, Adeel H. Shaikh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and comment on published peer-reviewed literature for evidence of effectiveness of treatments for metastatic uveal melanoma. Design: Analytical nonexperimental study of published peer-reviewed data. Methods: Literature search and analysis of pertinent articles published between January 1, 1980 and June 30, 2008. Results: Of 80 identified publications, 12 (15.0%) were review articles without original information, 2 (2.5%) were review articles combined with case reports, 22 (27.5%) were case reports, 16 (20.0%) were retrospective descriptive case series reports, 3 (3.75%) were pilot studies of a novel intervention, 2 (2.5%) were prospective phase I clinical trials, 8 (10.0%) were prospective phase I/II clinical trials, and 15 (18.75%) were prospective phase II clinical trials. None of the articles reported a prospective, randomized phase III clinical trial. The largest reported unselected patient groups had a median survival of 3 to 4 months after detection of metastasis, whereas the largest selected patient groups showed substantially longer median survival times. Conclusions: Although median survival time after diagnosis of metastatic uveal melanoma tends to be substantially longer in selected patient subgroups subjected to aggressive invasive interventions than it is in unselected groups, much if not most of this apparent difference in survival is likely to be attributable to selection bias, surveillance bias, and publication bias rather than treatment-induced alteration of expected outcome. Published peer-reviewed articles do not provide compelling scientific evidence of any survival benefit of any method of treatment for any subgroup of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)119-127
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume148
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Survival
Phase II Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials, Phase I
Publication Bias
Phase III Clinical Trials
Selection Bias
Publications
Randomized Controlled Trials
Uveal melanoma
Neoplasm Metastasis
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Effectiveness of Treatments for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma. / Augsburger, James J.; Correa, Zelia; Shaikh, Adeel H.

In: American Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 148, No. 1, 01.07.2009, p. 119-127.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Augsburger, James J. ; Correa, Zelia ; Shaikh, Adeel H. / Effectiveness of Treatments for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma. In: American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2009 ; Vol. 148, No. 1. pp. 119-127.
@article{31c20995442b41c3a08ae65deb803b06,
title = "Effectiveness of Treatments for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate and comment on published peer-reviewed literature for evidence of effectiveness of treatments for metastatic uveal melanoma. Design: Analytical nonexperimental study of published peer-reviewed data. Methods: Literature search and analysis of pertinent articles published between January 1, 1980 and June 30, 2008. Results: Of 80 identified publications, 12 (15.0{\%}) were review articles without original information, 2 (2.5{\%}) were review articles combined with case reports, 22 (27.5{\%}) were case reports, 16 (20.0{\%}) were retrospective descriptive case series reports, 3 (3.75{\%}) were pilot studies of a novel intervention, 2 (2.5{\%}) were prospective phase I clinical trials, 8 (10.0{\%}) were prospective phase I/II clinical trials, and 15 (18.75{\%}) were prospective phase II clinical trials. None of the articles reported a prospective, randomized phase III clinical trial. The largest reported unselected patient groups had a median survival of 3 to 4 months after detection of metastasis, whereas the largest selected patient groups showed substantially longer median survival times. Conclusions: Although median survival time after diagnosis of metastatic uveal melanoma tends to be substantially longer in selected patient subgroups subjected to aggressive invasive interventions than it is in unselected groups, much if not most of this apparent difference in survival is likely to be attributable to selection bias, surveillance bias, and publication bias rather than treatment-induced alteration of expected outcome. Published peer-reviewed articles do not provide compelling scientific evidence of any survival benefit of any method of treatment for any subgroup of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.",
author = "Augsburger, {James J.} and Zelia Correa and Shaikh, {Adeel H.}",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajo.2009.01.023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "148",
pages = "119--127",
journal = "American Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0002-9394",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of Treatments for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma

AU - Augsburger, James J.

AU - Correa, Zelia

AU - Shaikh, Adeel H.

PY - 2009/7/1

Y1 - 2009/7/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate and comment on published peer-reviewed literature for evidence of effectiveness of treatments for metastatic uveal melanoma. Design: Analytical nonexperimental study of published peer-reviewed data. Methods: Literature search and analysis of pertinent articles published between January 1, 1980 and June 30, 2008. Results: Of 80 identified publications, 12 (15.0%) were review articles without original information, 2 (2.5%) were review articles combined with case reports, 22 (27.5%) were case reports, 16 (20.0%) were retrospective descriptive case series reports, 3 (3.75%) were pilot studies of a novel intervention, 2 (2.5%) were prospective phase I clinical trials, 8 (10.0%) were prospective phase I/II clinical trials, and 15 (18.75%) were prospective phase II clinical trials. None of the articles reported a prospective, randomized phase III clinical trial. The largest reported unselected patient groups had a median survival of 3 to 4 months after detection of metastasis, whereas the largest selected patient groups showed substantially longer median survival times. Conclusions: Although median survival time after diagnosis of metastatic uveal melanoma tends to be substantially longer in selected patient subgroups subjected to aggressive invasive interventions than it is in unselected groups, much if not most of this apparent difference in survival is likely to be attributable to selection bias, surveillance bias, and publication bias rather than treatment-induced alteration of expected outcome. Published peer-reviewed articles do not provide compelling scientific evidence of any survival benefit of any method of treatment for any subgroup of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate and comment on published peer-reviewed literature for evidence of effectiveness of treatments for metastatic uveal melanoma. Design: Analytical nonexperimental study of published peer-reviewed data. Methods: Literature search and analysis of pertinent articles published between January 1, 1980 and June 30, 2008. Results: Of 80 identified publications, 12 (15.0%) were review articles without original information, 2 (2.5%) were review articles combined with case reports, 22 (27.5%) were case reports, 16 (20.0%) were retrospective descriptive case series reports, 3 (3.75%) were pilot studies of a novel intervention, 2 (2.5%) were prospective phase I clinical trials, 8 (10.0%) were prospective phase I/II clinical trials, and 15 (18.75%) were prospective phase II clinical trials. None of the articles reported a prospective, randomized phase III clinical trial. The largest reported unselected patient groups had a median survival of 3 to 4 months after detection of metastasis, whereas the largest selected patient groups showed substantially longer median survival times. Conclusions: Although median survival time after diagnosis of metastatic uveal melanoma tends to be substantially longer in selected patient subgroups subjected to aggressive invasive interventions than it is in unselected groups, much if not most of this apparent difference in survival is likely to be attributable to selection bias, surveillance bias, and publication bias rather than treatment-induced alteration of expected outcome. Published peer-reviewed articles do not provide compelling scientific evidence of any survival benefit of any method of treatment for any subgroup of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67349216128&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67349216128&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.01.023

DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.01.023

M3 - Article

C2 - 19375060

AN - SCOPUS:67349216128

VL - 148

SP - 119

EP - 127

JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0002-9394

IS - 1

ER -