This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Curtis E. Margo, MD, MPH
Tampa, Fla

Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115(3):432-433.

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

The accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of posterior uveal melanoma has steadily improved during the last several decades.¹ Misdiagnosis at tertiary referral centers began to decline below 4% by the 1970s.^2,3 In 1990, the proportion of misdiagnosed choroidal melanomas in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) was 0.48%, the lowest ever reported.⁴ The results of the COMS were so good that the study group concluded "the major challenge with regard to posterior melanoma is no longer that of correct diagnosis but rather determination of the optimal treatment."⁴ It is uncertain how generalizable these specific results are to the community practice of ocular oncology.

A survey was conducted at the University of South Florida, Tampa, to compare the accuracy of diagnosing posterior uveal melanoma in Florida with that reported in the COMS. During the 48 months from June 1, 1992, through May 31, 1996, 53 patients had . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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