 |
|
Legacy of the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study
Bertil Damato, MD, PhD, FRCOphth
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(7):966-968.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Zimmerman et al1 caused much consternation when in the 1970s they suggested that enucleation of eyes with uveal melanoma accelerated metastatic death by disseminating tumor cells into the general circulation. Their hypothesis was based on the peak in mortality in the second postoperative year. Around the same time, Manschot and van Strik2 declared that radiotherapy of uveal melanoma was unjustifiable because histology frequently demonstrated viable melanoma cells in irradiated eyes. Studies reporting no significant differences in survival between enucleation and radiotherapy were unconvincing because they were nonrandomized with inadequate patient numbers and short follow-up. The "Zimmerman-Manschot debate" stirred much controversy about the treatment of choroidal melanoma, unsettling both patients and ophthalmologists. For these reasons, it was entirely reasonable to undertake large, collaborative studies that would provide definitive answers on how survival and quality of life are influenced by enucleation, pre-enucleation radiotherapy, and brachytherapy.
The Collaborative . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Author Affiliations: Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, England.
RELATED ARTICLES
A Retrospective Look at Prospective Investigations
Simmons Lessell
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(7):965.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Investigators' Perspective on the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study
Stuart L. Fine and Barbara S. Hawkins
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(7):968-971.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
