4.0 Article

Conjunctival Melanoma in Asian Indians: A Study of 42 Patients

Journal

SEMINARS IN OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 3, Pages 182-187

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08820538.2019.1620793

Keywords

Eye; tumor; conjunctiva; melanoma; Asian Indians

Categories

Funding

  1. Operation Eyesight Universal Institute for Eye Cancer
  2. Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe the clinical features, treatment, and outcomes of conjunctival melanoma in Asian Indians. Methods: Retrospective study of 42 patients. Results: The mean age at presentation of conjunctival melanoma was 43 years (median, 45 years; range, 9-78 years). There were 20 (48%) males and 22 (52%) females. Nineteen patients (45%) had a known history of a preexisting pigmented conjunctival lesion. Bulbar conjunctiva (n = 28; 67%) was the most common tumor epicenter, and medial ocular surface quadrant (n = 15; 36%) was more commonly involved. The mean tumor basal diameter was 12 mm (median, 10 mm; range, 4-30 mm), and the mean tumor thickness was 4 mm (median, 2 mm; range, 1-30 mm). Majority of the patients had a pigmented tumor (n = 33; 79%). The tumors arose de novo (n = 17, 41%) or were associated with conjunctival nevus (n = 9; 21%) or primary acquired melanosis (n = 16, 38%). Wide excisional biopsy, adjunctive cryotherapy, and amniotic membrane grafting were performed in 27 (71%) patients, 11 (29%) underwent orbital exenteration, and 4 were lost to follow-up prior to definitive treatment. Over a mean follow-up period of 24 months (median, 9 months; range, <1 to 136 months), four (11%) patients had tumor recurrence, seven (18%) had locoregional lymph node metastasis, and four (11%) developed systemic metastasis and died due to metastatic disease. Conclusion: Conjunctival melanoma predominantly occurs in middle-aged Asian Indians and is associated with a high rate of systemic metastasis and death.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available