Gustav Stålhammar, Vicktoria Vishnevskia-Dai, Robert M Verdijk, Alexandre Moulin
{"title":"葡萄膜黑色素瘤专家意见:来自第58届眼科肿瘤小组会议的见解。","authors":"Gustav Stålhammar, Vicktoria Vishnevskia-Dai, Robert M Verdijk, Alexandre Moulin","doi":"10.1159/000541016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clear evidence for the best clinical management of uveal melanoma is lacking in some areas. Therefore, reports on expert opinions in the field can be valuable.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A questionnaire comprising 10 questions was distributed to potential participants of the 58th Ophthalmic Oncology Group Meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, in June 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 34 respondents, 13 (38%) had >20 years of postresidency experience in ophthalmic oncology. The maximum recommended tumor thickness for ruthenium-106 plaque brachytherapy was 5.7 mm (SD 1.1). Twenty-three respondents (68%) indicated that radiological surveillance for metastatic disease should be conducted irrespective of primary tumor characteristics. A majority (74%) would treat a lesion with a 6 mm diameter and 1.5 mm thickness without waiting for evidence of growth if sufficient risk factors were present. Most experts did not currently recommend sampling of circulating tumor DNA or circulating tumor cells. There were no significant differences in responses based on the experience of respondents (≤20 vs. >20 years) or their annual volume of new cases (≤50 vs. >50).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This article reports the opinions of 34 experts in ophthalmic oncology on various contemporary topics in uveal melanoma. The responses illustrate both agreements and differences in opinions among experts.</p>","PeriodicalId":19434,"journal":{"name":"Ocular Oncology and Pathology","volume":"10 4","pages":"197-205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11627587/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expert Opinions on Uveal Melanoma: Insights from the 58th Ophthalmic Oncology Group Meeting.\",\"authors\":\"Gustav Stålhammar, Vicktoria Vishnevskia-Dai, Robert M Verdijk, Alexandre Moulin\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000541016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clear evidence for the best clinical management of uveal melanoma is lacking in some areas. Therefore, reports on expert opinions in the field can be valuable.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A questionnaire comprising 10 questions was distributed to potential participants of the 58th Ophthalmic Oncology Group Meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, in June 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 34 respondents, 13 (38%) had >20 years of postresidency experience in ophthalmic oncology. The maximum recommended tumor thickness for ruthenium-106 plaque brachytherapy was 5.7 mm (SD 1.1). Twenty-three respondents (68%) indicated that radiological surveillance for metastatic disease should be conducted irrespective of primary tumor characteristics. A majority (74%) would treat a lesion with a 6 mm diameter and 1.5 mm thickness without waiting for evidence of growth if sufficient risk factors were present. Most experts did not currently recommend sampling of circulating tumor DNA or circulating tumor cells. There were no significant differences in responses based on the experience of respondents (≤20 vs. >20 years) or their annual volume of new cases (≤50 vs. >50).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This article reports the opinions of 34 experts in ophthalmic oncology on various contemporary topics in uveal melanoma. The responses illustrate both agreements and differences in opinions among experts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ocular Oncology and Pathology\",\"volume\":\"10 4\",\"pages\":\"197-205\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11627587/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ocular Oncology and Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000541016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ocular Oncology and Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000541016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在一些地区,葡萄膜黑色素瘤的最佳临床治疗缺乏明确的证据。因此,该领域的专家意见报告可能是有价值的。方法:向2024年6月在瑞典斯德哥尔摩举行的第58届眼科肿瘤小组会议的潜在参与者分发了一份包含10个问题的问卷。结果:在34名受访者中,13名(38%)在住院后有20年的眼科肿瘤工作经验。钌-106斑块近距离治疗推荐的最大肿瘤厚度为5.7 mm (SD 1.1)。23名受访者(68%)表示,无论原发肿瘤的特征如何,都应进行转移性疾病的放射监测。如果存在足够的危险因素,大多数医生(74%)会对直径为6mm、厚度为1.5 mm的病变进行治疗,而无需等待生长的证据。大多数专家目前不建议对循环肿瘤DNA或循环肿瘤细胞进行取样。根据被调查者的经验(≤20年vs. bb10 20年)或他们的年新病例量(≤50年vs. bb10 50年),在回答上没有显著差异。结论:本文报道了34位眼科肿瘤学专家对葡萄膜黑色素瘤的各种当代话题的看法。这些回答说明了专家之间的共识和分歧。
Expert Opinions on Uveal Melanoma: Insights from the 58th Ophthalmic Oncology Group Meeting.
Introduction: Clear evidence for the best clinical management of uveal melanoma is lacking in some areas. Therefore, reports on expert opinions in the field can be valuable.
Methods: A questionnaire comprising 10 questions was distributed to potential participants of the 58th Ophthalmic Oncology Group Meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, in June 2024.
Results: Among 34 respondents, 13 (38%) had >20 years of postresidency experience in ophthalmic oncology. The maximum recommended tumor thickness for ruthenium-106 plaque brachytherapy was 5.7 mm (SD 1.1). Twenty-three respondents (68%) indicated that radiological surveillance for metastatic disease should be conducted irrespective of primary tumor characteristics. A majority (74%) would treat a lesion with a 6 mm diameter and 1.5 mm thickness without waiting for evidence of growth if sufficient risk factors were present. Most experts did not currently recommend sampling of circulating tumor DNA or circulating tumor cells. There were no significant differences in responses based on the experience of respondents (≤20 vs. >20 years) or their annual volume of new cases (≤50 vs. >50).
Conclusion: This article reports the opinions of 34 experts in ophthalmic oncology on various contemporary topics in uveal melanoma. The responses illustrate both agreements and differences in opinions among experts.