Metastatic Uveal Melanoma Surveillance: A Delphi Panel Consensus

作者：Juan Alban, R. Christopher Bowen, David A. Reichstein, Meredith McKean, Jose Lutzky, Ezekiel Weis, Richard D. Carvajal, Susan Dulka, Brian Morse, Marcus O. Butler, Suthee Rapisuwon, K. Kim, Sanjay Chandrasekaran, Allison Betof Warner, Jonathan S Zager, Bartosz Chmielowski, Sapna P. Patel, Leonel F. Hernandez‐Aya, Zelia M. Correa, Leslie A. Fecher, Yana G. Najjar, K. Montazeri, A. Shoushtari, Asad Javed, Dan S. Gombos, April K. S. Salama, Katy K. Tsai, Frank H. Miller, Nikhil I. Khushalani, Rino S. Seedor, Evan J. Lipson, Sunil Reddy, Elizabeth Buchbinder, Shailender Bhatia, Anna C. Pavlick, Inderjit Mehmi, Thomas Aaberg, Alexandra P. Ikeguchi, Ivana K. Kim, Scott D. Walter, Arun D. Singh, Ryan J. Sullivan, Jacob Choi, Basil K. Williams, Marlana Orloff, Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Megan D. Schollenberger, Namita Gandhi, J. William Harbour, Sunandana Chandra · 发表于：Cancers · 年份：2025 · DOI：10.3390/cancers18010121 · 被引用次数：1 · 研究领域：Ocular Oncology and Treatments、Corneal surgery and disorders、Veterinary Oncology Research

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Uveal melanoma is a rare but aggressive intraocular malignancy that metastasizes in up to half of patients, most commonly to the liver, despite effective local treatment. In the absence of robust evidence, there are no standardized guidelines for post-treatment surveillance, resulting in wide variation in imaging modalities, frequency, and duration across physicians and institutions. This study aimed to develop expert consensus recommendations for surveillance strategies in patients with uveal melanoma. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was conducted across three iterative survey rounds between September 2024 and February 2025 using an online platform. Panelists included medical oncologists, ocular oncologists, radiologists, and surgical oncologists from North America. A multidisciplinary steering committee developed statements addressing risk-based surveillance using both molecular and clinical prognostic factors, including gene expression profiling (GEP) and PRAME status. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥70% of panelists rating a statement 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts were invited, and 41 completed at least one survey round. The panel represented 17 U.S. states, Washington, D.C., and two Canadian provinces. Twelve statements reached stable consensus, including recommendations for imaging modality, frequency, and duration in intermediate- and high-risk patients. Although there was agreement that low-risk patients warrant...