Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Metastatic Uveal Melanoma Surveillance: A Delphi Panel Consensus

Juan Alban, R. Christopher Bowen, David A. Reichstein, Meredith McKean, Jose Lutzky, Ezekiel Weis, Richard D. Carvajal, Susan Dulka, Brian G. Morse, Marcus O. Butler, Suthee Rapisuwon, Kevin B. Kim, Sanjay Chandrasekaran, Allison Betof Warner, Jonathan S. Zager, Bartosz Chmielowski, Sapna P. Patel, Leonel Fernando Hernandez-Aya, Zelia M. Correa, Leslie A. FecherYana G. Najjar, Kamaneh Montazeri, Alexander N. Shoushtari, Asad Javed, Dan S. Gombos, April K.S. Salama, Katy Tsai, Frank H. Miller, Nikhil Khushalani, Rino S. Seedor, Evan J. Lipson, Sunil A. Reddy, Elizabeth Buchbinder, Shailender Bhatia, Anna Pavlick, Inderjit Mehmi, Thomas Aaberg, Alexandra P. Ikeguchi, Ivana K. Kim, Scott D. Walter, Arun D. Singh, Ryan J. Sullivan, Jacob S. Choi, Basil K. Williams, Marlana Orloff, Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Megan D. Schollenberger, Namita Gandhi, J. William Harbour, Sunandana Chandra

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

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 surveillance, no consensus was reached on the optimal approach for this group. Conclusions: This is the first study to provide consensus-based guidance incorporating GEP and PRAME status into surveillance recommendations for uveal melanoma, offering a standardized framework to guide clinical practice and future research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number121
JournalCancers
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 30 2025

Keywords

  • PRAME
  • gene-expression profile
  • metastatic uveal melanoma surveillance
  • uveal melanoma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Metastatic Uveal Melanoma Surveillance: A Delphi Panel Consensus'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this