 |
|
The Investigators' Perspective on the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study
Stuart L. Fine, MD;
Barbara S. Hawkins, PhD
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(7):968-971.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, US ophthalmologists who diagnosed uveal melanoma in a patient confronted a difficult decision: whether to recommend enucleation of the eye with the tumor, in accord with a century of ophthalmic practice, or to refer the patient to one of a small number of ophthalmologists who were advocating eye-conserving radiotherapy for many such tumors. The dilemma was exacerbated by reports regarding a large series of patients who had undergone enucleation that showed that the period with the highest incidence of death was 1 to 2 years following enucleation.1-3 Also, although of lesser concern with decreasing rates of misdiagnosis, the ophthalmologist had to consider the possibility of removing an eye that harbored not melanoma but a benign mass. Thus, the ophthalmologist had to choose between 2 options: remove the affected eye and possibly hasten the patient's death . . . [Full Text of this Article]DESIGN ISSUES AND DECISIONS
OTHER ISSUES AND DECISIONS
SUMMARY OF STUDY QUALITY AND PRIMARY OUTCOME FINDINGS
EFFECT ON CLINICAL PRACTICE
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
CONCLUSIONS
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Author Affiliations: Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Dr Fine); Wilmer Eye Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (Dr Hawkins).
RELATED ARTICLE
Legacy of the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study
Bertil Damato
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(7):966-968.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
