MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763913890 · doi:10.1186/s40942-017-0096-5

Outcomes of primary endoresection for choroidal melanoma

2017· article· en· W2763913890 on OpenAlexaff
André Vidoris, André Maia, Márcia Lowen, Melina Correia Morales, Jordan Isenberg, Bruno F. Fernandes, Rubens Belfort

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Retina and Vitreous · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersEthiconUniversidade de São Paulo
KeywordsChoroidal melanomaPrimary (astronomy)MelanomaMedicineCancer researchPhysicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To review long time treatment results in patients with small or medium sized choroidal melanoma who underwent surgical tumor endoresection as a primary treatment when plaque radiotherapy was unable and patients declined enucleation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were evaluated for best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and underwent biomicroscopy, indirect ophthalmoscopy, retinography and ultrasound as well as the usual systemic workup. Study inclusion required the absence of scleral invasion or metastasis and an anterior margin not exceeding the pars plana or the ciliary body. Surgery consisted of a clear lens phacoemulsification with a PC-IOL, and a 23-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with anterior vitreous shave, lesional choroidal endodiathermy, followed by 23-gauge probe tumor endoresection and continuous endolaser. Patients were followed at post-operative 1 day, 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months and then every 6 months with a complete ophthalmological exam including ultrasound biomicroscopy and systemic follow-up at 3, 6 and every 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with choroidal melanoma were included the study. Pre-operative BCVA ranged from 20/20 to hand motion (HM): 20/20 (n = 2); 20/60 (n = 1); and HM (n = 10). Pathological analysis confirmed the diagnosis of uveal melanoma in all cases. Mean follow-up was 54.5 months (45-66 months) with a final BCVA ranging from 20/60 to HM: 20/60 (n = 1); 20/60 to 20/200 (n = 10); and HM (n = 2). The eye retention rate in our study was 100%. No intraocular recurrence was observed. One patient died 12 months after surgery from metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Endoresection appears to be an acceptable alternative to enucleation for the treatment of posteriorly-localized uveal melanoma, with excellent local control and eye salvage rates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Retina and VitreousSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207