PubTransformer

A site to transform Pubmed publications into these bibliographic reference formats: ADS, BibTeX, EndNote, ISI used by the Web of Knowledge, RIS, MEDLINE, Microsoft's Word 2007 XML.




PMID- 28672400
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DA  - 20170703
DCOM- 20170714
LR  - 20170714
IS  - 1552-5783 (Electronic)
IS  - 0146-0404 (Linking)
VI  - 58
IP  - 9
DP  - 2017 Jul 01
TI  - Comparison of Alternative Tumor Size Classifications for Posterior Uveal
      Melanomas.
PG  - 3335-3342
LID - 10.1167/iovs.16-20465 [doi]
AB  - Purpose: Determine which posterior uveal melanoma (PUM) size classification with 
      three categories has the best prognostic discrimination. Methods:
      Single-institution study of 424 consecutive patients with PUM. The tumor's
      largest basal diameter (LBD), smallest basal diameter (SBD), and thickness (TH)
      were estimated by fundus mapping and ultrasonography. Tumors were assigned to
      "small," "medium," or "large" size categories defined by 11 different
      classifications (Linear LBD, Rectangular LBD x TH, Cubic LBD x SBD x TH, Warren
      Original, Warren Modified, Augsburger, COMS Original, COMS Revised, TNM 2002, and
      modified TNM 2010 classification [a,b]). Prognostic significance of
      classifications was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier event curves with computation of
      log rank test for trend statistic. Results: In six classification systems (Warren
      Original, Warren Modified, COMS Revised, TNM 2002, TNM 2010a, TNM 2010b) >50% of 
      tumors fell within one subgroup. In the Warren Original classification <5% of
      tumors fell within one subgroup. Separation of Kaplan-Meier curves among three
      size categories was judged "excellent" in four classifications (Linear LBD, Cubic
      Volume, TNM 2010a, and TNM 2010b) and "very poor" in the Warren Original. Linear 
      LBD classification was associated with highest log rank statistic value. TNM
      2010a, TNM 2010b, TNM 2002, Augsburger, and Cubic Volume classifications were
      also determined to be quite good. Conclusions: Linear LBD classification was the 
      best three-size category discriminator among low-, intermediate-, and high-risk
      subgroups. Considering our findings, it seems possible that the arduous work
      required to apply complex classifications, especially for three-category systems,
      for PUM may not be justified in routine clinical practice.
FAU - Skinner, Cassandra C
AU  - Skinner CC
AD  - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine,
      Cincinnati, Ohio, United States.
FAU - Augsburger, James J
AU  - Augsburger JJ
AD  - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine,
      Cincinnati, Ohio, United States.
FAU - Augsburger, Bret D
AU  - Augsburger BD
AD  - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine,
      Cincinnati, Ohio, United States.
FAU - Correa, Zelia M
AU  - Correa ZM
AD  - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine,
      Cincinnati, Ohio, United States.
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - United States
TA  - Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
JT  - Investigative ophthalmology & visual science
JID - 7703701
RN  - Uveal melanoma
SB  - IM
MH  - Adolescent
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - Aged, 80 and over
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - Kaplan-Meier Estimate
MH  - Male
MH  - Melanoma/*classification/pathology
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Neoplasm Staging/*methods
MH  - Prognosis
MH  - Uveal Neoplasms/*classification/pathology
MH  - Young Adult
EDAT- 2017/07/04 06:00
MHDA- 2017/07/15 06:00
CRDT- 2017/07/04 06:00
AID - 2643156 [pii]
AID - 10.1167/iovs.16-20465 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017 Jul 1;58(9):3335-3342. doi:
      10.1167/iovs.16-20465.