Patients with liver metastases of uveal melanoma (LMUM) die from their metastatic evolution within 2 years. We established a nomogram to choose a treatment adapted to life expectancy. From 2002 to 2013, we reviewed 224 patients with LMUM selected by liver MRI. A nomogram was developed based on a Cox model. The predictive performance of the model was assessed according to the C-statistic, Kaplan–Meier curve, and calibration plots. The median follow-up was 49.2 months (range, 0.6–70.9). The survival rates at 6, 12, and 24 months were 0.88 (0.95 CI [0.84–0.93]), 0.68 (0.95 CI [0.62–0.75]), and 0.26 (0.95 CI [0.21–0.33]), respectively. The four factors selected for the nomogram with a worse prognosis were: A disease-free interval between the UM and LMUM groups of less than 6 months (HR = 3.39; 0.95 CI [1.90–6.05]), more than 10 LMUM (HR = 3.95; 0.95 CI [1.97–4.43]), a maximum LMUM of more than 1200 mm2 (HR = 2.47; 0.95 CI [1.53–3.98]), and a lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) value greater than 1.5 (HR = 3.72; 0.95 CI [2.30–6.00]). The model achieved relatively good discrimination and calibration (C-statistic 0.71). This nomogram could be useful for decision-making and risk stratification for therapeutic options.

The optimal consolidation strategy for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) remains controversial. Preventing radio-induced neurotoxicity of consolidation treatment through reduced-dose whole-brain radiotherapy (rdWBRT) at a dose of 23.4 Gy is an interesting alternative to conventional WBRT in patients aged <60 years. From the LOC Network (Network for Oculo-cerebral Lymphomas) database, we retrospectively selected patients with PCNSL aged <60 years who showed complete (CR) or unconfirmed CR after high-dose methotrexate–based chemotherapy and had received consolidation rdWBRT as the first-line treatment. If available, prospective neuropsychological follow-ups were reported. Twenty-nine patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2018 met the study selection criteria. Nine (31%) patients experienced relapse during the follow-up, with a median time from radiotherapy to recurrence of 8.7 months (interquartile range, 4-11.5). Five of those patients received salvage treatment and consolidation with intensive chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Progression-free survival rates were 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 79%-100%), 72% (95% CI, 56%-88%), and 69% (95% CI, 52%-85%) at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. Overall survival rates were 100%, 89% (95% CI, 79%-100%), and 86% (95% CI, 74%-99%) at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively, and were consistent with those observed for standard-dose WBRT (sdWBRT). No prognostic factor was identified. The results of the 36-month neuropsychological follow-up for a subset of patients appeared reassuring, with most patients exhibiting maintenance of or improvements in their baseline conditions. Our results, combined with phase 2 study results, support the use of rdWBRT instead of sdWBRT as a consolidation treatment in <60-year-old patients showing CR after induction treatment.

There is increasing evidence of the survival benefit of treating uveal melanoma in an early stage, however it is important to discuss with the patient the associated risk of visual loss. We investigated visual outcomes for uveal melanomas staged T1 (T1UM) treated by proton beam radiotherapy (PBR) as a function of their distance to fovea-optic disc. This retrospective study included a cohort of 424 patients with T1UM treated with PBR between 1991 and 2010 with at least a 5-year follow-up. Visual acuity (VA) was analyzed for patients with posterior edge of tumor located at ≥3 mm (GSup3) or <3 mm (GInf3) from fovea-optic disc. The mean follow-up duration was 122 months, no tumor recurrence was observed. The mean baseline and final VA were 20/25 and 20/32 for GSup3 (n = 75), and 20/40 and 20/80 for GInf3 (n = 317) respectively. The frequency of a 20/200 or greater visual conservation was 93.2%(CI95%:87.7–99.1) and 60.1%(CI95%:54.9–65.9) for GSup3 and GInf3 respectively. This difference between groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The risk factors for significant VA loss (less than 20/200) were GInf3 location (p < 0.001), tumor touching optic disc (p = 0.04), initial VA inferior to 20/40 (p < 0.001), documented growth (p = 0.002), and age greater than 60 years (p < 0.001). In summary, PBR for T1UM yields excellent tumor control and good long-term visual outcomes for tumors located ≥3 mm from fovea-optic disc.

Purpose: In patients with metastatic breast cancer, ≥5 circulating tumor cells (CTC)/7.5 mL of blood is a validated adverse prognostic marker. The STIC CTC phase III trial (N = 778, hormone receptor–positive HER2− metastatic breast cancer) showed that ≥5 CTC/7.5 mL before treatment predicted greater benefit from first-line chemotherapy over endocrine therapy for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). This exploratory analysis examines these results by histologic subtype, comparing invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and carcinoma of no special type (NST). Experimental Design: Baseline CTC count (CellSearch) and its impact on PFS and OS were compared between ILC (N = 159) and NST (N = 571). The survival benefit of chemotherapy in patients with a high CTC count was then re-evaluated separately for each subtype. Results: Before treatment, ILC had significantly higher CTC counts than NST [median, 10 (Q1 = 2, Q3 = 40) vs. 1 (Q1 = 0, Q3 = 7)]. ≥5 CTC/7.5 mL were detected in 64% (95% confidence interval, 56–71) of patients with ILC and 31% (95% confidence interval, 28–35) of patients with NST, correlating with shorter PFS and OS in both. However, patients with ILC and ≥5 CTC/7.5 mL saw no significant benefit from CTC-informed chemotherapy [PFS: HR, 0.91 (0.55–1.52); OS: HR, 0.83 (0.46–1.52)]. In contrast, patients with NST and ≥5 CTC/7.5 mL had markedly improved outcomes with chemotherapy [PFS: HR, 0.54 (0.37–0.81); OS: HR, 0.37 (0.21–0.66)]. Conclusions: ILC sheds more CTC than NST, likely owing to underlying biological differences. Although the ≥5 CTC/7.5-mL threshold remained a valid prognostic marker for both, it was predictive of chemotherapy benefit in NST but not in ILC. These findings highlight differences in biomarker utility between ILC and NST, affecting both threshold relevance and treatment response.