Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-center analysis of intraocular biopsy technique and outcomes for uveal melanoma: Ocular Oncology Study Consortium report 4

  • Oncology
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the relationship between surgical approach for intraocular tumor biopsy of uveal melanoma and tumor morphologic features such as size and intraocular location and the effect of these variables on diagnostic yield and biopsy outcome.

Methods

Consecutive patients from nine Ocular Oncology centers with uveal melanoma (UM) undergoing tumor biopsy immediately preceding I125 plaque brachytherapy with tissue sent for gene expression profiling (GEP) testing were reviewed retrospectively.

Results

Three hundred sixty patients were included (50% men, mean age 60.2 years). Overall biopsy yield was 99% and 83% for GEP and cytopathology, respectively. Surgeon choice of biopsy approach (trans-vitreal vs. trans-scleral) was found to associate with both tumor location and tumor thickness. A trans-scleral rather than trans-vitreal approach was used more commonly for anteriorly located tumors (92% vs. 38% of posterior tumors, p < 0.001) and thicker tumors (86% vs. 55% of thin tumors, p < 0.001). When performing trans-vitreal biopsies, ocular oncologists with previous vitreoretinal surgery fellowship training were more likely to use wide-field surgical viewing systems, compared with indirect ophthalmoscopy (82.6% vs. 20.6%, p < 0.001). Surgical complications were rare and occurred more frequently with trans-vitreal biopsies (3.6% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.046).

Conclusions

In this multi-center analysis of UM tumor biopsy, surgical yield was high for obtaining tumor tissue for GEP and cytopathology analysis with both trans-scleral and trans-vitreal techniques. Fellowship-trained ocular oncologists’ preferred intraocular biopsy techniques associated strongly with tumor location, tumor thickness, and fellowship training of the surgeon. Short-term complication rates were low.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Seider MI, Mruthyunjaya P (2018) Molecular prognostics for uveal melanoma. Retina. 38(2):211–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Coupland SE, Lake SL et al (2013) Molecular pathology of uveal melanoma. Eye (Lond) 27(2):230–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Onken MD, Worley LA, Char DH et al (2012) Collaborative Ocular Oncology Group report number 1: prospective validation of a multi-gene prognostic assay in uveal melanoma. Ophthalmology. 119(8):1596–1603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Valsecchi ME, Orloff M, Sato R et al (2018) Adjuvant sunitinib in high-risk patients with uveal melanoma: comparison with institutional controls. Ophthalmology. 125(2):210–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uveal Melanoma Guidelines (Version 1.2018). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uveal.pdf.

  6. Finn AP, Materin MA, Mruthyunjaya P (2018) Choroidal tumor biopsy: a review of the current state and a glance into future techniques. Retina 38(Suppl 1):S79–S87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berry D, Seider M, Stinnett S et al (2018) Relationship of clinical features and baseline tumor size with gene expression profile status in uveal melanoma: a multi-institutional study. Retina 38(Suppl 1):S79–S87

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mruthyunjaya P, Seider MI, Stinnett S et al (2017) Association between tumor regression rate and gene expression profile after iodine 125 plaque radiotherapy for Uveal melanoma. Ophthalmology. 124(10):1532–1539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berry DE, Schefler AC, Seider MI et al (2018) Correlation of gene expression profile status and American Joint Commission on Cancer stage in uveal melanoma. Retina. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000002385

  10. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F et al (2017) AJCC Cancer staging manual, 8th edn. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Castle Biosciences Inc. DecisionDx-UM Summary. http://www.myuvealmelanoma.com/health-care-professionals/decisiondx-um-summary/. Accessed 20 Dec 2018

  12. Kim RS, Chevez-Barrios P, Divatia M et al (2018) Yield, techniques, and complications of transvitreal and transscleral biopsies in small uveal melanoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 136(5):482–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Augsburger JJ, Corrêa ZM, Augsburger BD (2015) Frequency and implications of discordant gene expression profile class in posterior uveal melanomas sampled by fine needle aspiration biopsy. Am J Ophthalmol 159(2):248–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mashayekhi A, Lim RP, Shields CL et al (2016) Extraocular extension of ciliochoroidal melanoma after transscleral fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Retin Cases Brief Rep. 10(3):289–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schefler AC, Gologorsky D, Marr BP et al (2013) Extraocular extension of uveal melanoma after fine-needle aspiration, vitrectomy, and open biopsy. JAMA Ophthalmol 131(9):1220–1224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Caminal JM, Sanz S, Carreras M et al (2006) Epibulbar seeding at the site of a transvitreal fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Arch Ophthalmol 124(4):587–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Raja V, Russo A, Coupland S et al (2011) Extraocular seeding of choroidal melanoma after a transretinal biopsy with a 25-gauge vitrector. Retin Cases Brief Rep 5(3):194–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Singh AD, Turell ME, Topham AK (2011) Uveal melanoma: trends in incidence, treatment, and survival. Ophthalmology. 118(9):1881–1885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grewal DS, Bhullar PK, Pasricha ND et al (2017) Intraoperative 4-dimensional microscope-integrated optical coherence tomography-guided 27-gauge transvitreal choroidal biopsy for choroidal melanoma. Retina. 37(4):796–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grewal DS, Cummings TJ, Mruthyunjaya P (2017) Outcomes of 27-gauge vitrectomy-assisted choroidal and subretinal biopsy. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 48(5):406–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The following are Ocular Oncology Study Consortium members:

Duke Eye Center, Durham, NC (coordinating center): Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, MD, MHS (Study PI), Miguel Materin, MD, Michael I. Seider, MD, Duncan E. Berry, MD, Nikolas N. Raufi, MD, Sandra Stinnett, DrPH; University of Miami/Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, FL: J. William Harbour, MD; University of Southern California/USC Roski Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA: Jesse L. Berry, MD, and Jonathan Kim, MD; Oregon Health Sciences/Casey Eye Institute, Portland, OR: Alison Skalet, MD, PhD, and Audra Miller, MD; Smilow Cancer Hospital at Yale New Haven, New Haven, CT: Miguel Materin, MD, and Tiffany Liu, MD; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI: Hakan Demirci, MD, and Zeynep G. Ozkurt, MD; Colorado Retina Associates, Rocky Vista University, Denver, CO: Peter Hovland, MD, PhD; Retina Specialists of Michigan, Grand Rapids, MI and Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI: Thomas Aaberg, Jr., MD; Retina Consultants of Houston/Blanton Eye Institute at Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston TX: Amy C. Schefler, MD, Ryan S. Kim, and Anne Tann, MD (Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital).

Funding

This study was funded by The Heed Ophthalmic Fellowship - (M.Seider), The Childress Family Foundation (NC), unrestricted departmental funding from Research to Prevent Blindness (New York, NY) and by grant P30 EY010572 from the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD) – (P.Mruthyunjaya).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Permanente Medical Group, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Michael I. Seider

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Michael I. Seider

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Michael I. Seider, Duncan E. Berry, Miguel Materin, Sandra Stinnett & Prithvi Mruthyunjaya

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Duncan E. Berry

  5. Retina Consultants of Houston/Blanton Eye Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA

    Amy C. Schefler

  6. Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University, 2452 Watson Court, Palo Alto, CA, 94303, USA

    Prithvi Mruthyunjaya

  7. Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    Prithvi Mruthyunjaya

Authors
  1. Michael I. Seider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Duncan E. Berry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy C. Schefler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Miguel Materin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sandra Stinnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Ocular Oncology Study Consortium

  • Nikolas N. Raufi
  • , J. William Harbour
  • , Jesse L. Berry
  • , Jonathan Kim
  • , Alison Skalet
  • , Audra Miller
  • , Tiffany Liu
  • , Hakan Demirci
  • , Zeynep G. Ozkurt
  • , Peter Hovland
  • , Thomas Aaberg Jr
  • , Ryan S. Kim
  •  & Anne Tann

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prithvi Mruthyunjaya.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Prithvi Mruthyunjaya serves as a consultant for Castle Biosciences, Optos Inc., Santen, EyePoint Pharmaceuticals, and Arix Biosciences.

Miguel Materin serves as a consultant for Castle Biosciences.

Amy Schefler serves as a consultant for Castle Biosciences (grant funding), Aura Biosciences (consultant, grant funding); Regeneron (grant funding) and Genentech (consultant, grant funding).

Duncan Berry declares he has no conflict of interest.

Michael I. Seider declares he has no conflict of interest.

Sandra Stinnett declares she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the numerous Institutional Review Boards who reviewed this study (all centers listed below) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not obtained from all individual participants included in the study as this study was retrospective and de-identified.

Disclaimer

The design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication were solely made by the authors without influence from the funding organizations.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seider, M.I., Berry, D.E., Schefler, A.C. et al. Multi-center analysis of intraocular biopsy technique and outcomes for uveal melanoma: Ocular Oncology Study Consortium report 4. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 258, 427–435 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04531-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04531-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation