This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (11)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Stuart L. Fine, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103(7):910-911.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

For approximately 100 years, enucleation has been the standard treatment for uveal melanoma.¹ It has been assumed that removing the cancer soon after diagnosis would prolong the patient's life. In the 1960s, the urgency to enucleate was suppressed somewhat by a report that up to 20% of eyes removed for suspected melanoma did not harbor a melanoma.² In the 1970s, when Zimmerman et al³ and Zimmerman and McLean⁴ proposed that enucleation increased mortality by promoting micrometastases during surgery, the desirability of prompt enucleation was seriously questioned. About this same time, several investigators began to experiment with so-called conservative forms of treatment that allowed the patient with a melanoma to retain the affected eye. While conservative management includes radiation, photocoagulation, and eye wall resection, among others, radiation therapy has been evaluated most extensively.

See also pp 916 and 924.

The two types of radiation treatment are brachytherapy . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Baltimore

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?