4.6 Article

Differences in uveal melanomas between men and women from the British Isles

Journal

EYE
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 292-299

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2011.272

Keywords

uveal melanoma; gender; sex; histology; genetics

Categories

Funding

  1. Research and Development Unit of Royal Liverpool University Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The purpose of this study is to compare uveal melanomas (UMs) in men and women. Methods The Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre (LOOC) database was reviewed. Patients treated for UM at the LOOC between 1993 and 2010 were selected. Differences between sexes were identified using the chi(2)-test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables. Results The 3380 patients comprised 1685 women and 1695 men. The tumours were considered clinically to have arisen in choroid in 89.5%, ciliary body in 5.3%, and iris in 5.2%. Tumours in women were less likely to originate in choroid (87.2 vs 91.7%; P < 0.001) and showed more circumferential spread in ciliary body (P < 0.001) and iris (P = 0.003). Tumours in men were more likely to extend to within 3 mm of optic disc or fovea (46.3 vs 39.0%, P < 0.001), showing more extensive optic-disc involvement (P < 0.001). The median largest basal tumour diameter was 12.2 mm in men and 11.9 mm in women (P = 0.001). The tumour thickness had a median of 4.4 mm and 3.8 mm in men and women, respectively (P = 0.015). The 180 ciliary body tumours occurred in 112 women and 68 men. In these, the prevalence of extraocular spread was higher in women (19.6 vs 8.8%; P = 0.052). The 175 iris melanomas were more common in women than men (103 vs 72, respectively). Conclusions In men, UMs tend to be larger and more posterior than in women. Eye (2012) 26, 292-299; doi:10.1038/eye.2011.272; published online 11 November 2011

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available