0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Clinical Trial Retrospective |

Legacy of the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study FREE

Bertil Damato, MD, PhD, FRCOphth
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, England.


Section Editor: Simmons Lessell, MD

More Author Information
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(7):966-968. doi:10.1001/archopht.125.7.966.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Zimmerman et al1 caused much consternation when in the 1970s they suggested that enucleation of eyes with uveal melanoma accelerated metastatic death by disseminating tumor cells into the general circulation. Their hypothesis was based on the peak in mortality in the second postoperative year. Around the same time, Manschot and van Strik2 declared that radiotherapy of uveal melanoma was unjustifiable because histology frequently demonstrated viable melanoma cells in irradiated eyes. Studies reporting no significant differences in survival between enucleation and radiotherapy were unconvincing because they were nonrandomized with inadequate patient numbers and short follow-up. The “Zimmerman-Manschot debate” stirred much controversy about the treatment of choroidal melanoma, unsettling both patients and ophthalmologists. For these reasons, it was entirely reasonable to undertake large, collaborative studies that would provide definitive answers on how survival and quality of life are influenced by enucleation, pre-enucleation radiotherapy, and brachytherapy.

The Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) has done truly impressive work in successfully performing large, randomized, prospective studies. The data are highly credible, thanks to excellent compliance with protocols and near-perfect diagnostic accuracy.

The trial of enucleation alone vs pre-enucleation radiotherapy included 1003 patients with large choroidal melanoma and concluded that there was no difference between treatment arms.3 This COMS study is so convincing that any conflicting results from smaller, nonrandomized evaluations of pre-enucleation radiotherapy are disregarded.4 Enucleation is now performed without the expense of adjuvant radiotherapy. Financial savings should exceed the cost of the COMS investigation. This negative finding confounds Zimmerman's hypothesis, reassuring patients and their ophthalmologists that enucleation does not accelerate death from metastatic disease.

Another influential COMS conclusion was that in 1317 patients with medium-sized choroidal melanoma, the 5-year mortality with histopathologically confirmed melanoma metastasis after brachytherapy with iodine 125 was no worse than after enucleation.5 This provided reassurance that brachytherapy is “as safe as enucleation.” Eyes saved as a result of COMS conclusions should quickly outnumber eyes enucleated in the study if this has not already happened.

The number of patients enrolled in the COMS is a remarkable achievement, considering the rarity of uveal melanomas. However, neither of the randomized studies provides sufficient statistical power to state that there is no survival difference between rival treatments. In the brachytherapy study, for example, the 95% confidence intervals for unadjusted risk ratios were excessively wide (ie, 0.86-1.24 for all-cause mortality and 0.81-1.41 for histopathologically confirmed metastasis during the 12-year follow-up).5 In addition, many would not be satisfied that brachytherapy is as effective as enucleation unless they are reassured that local recurrence does not increase mortality; however, the COMS did not address this question. Furthermore, since the ocular treatments essentially aimed to prevent metastatic spread, the significance of the COMS results was diminished by the fact that in the brachytherapy and pre-enucleation radiotherapy studies, at least 10% and 35% of patients, respectively, died within 5 years of treatment and hence as a result of preexisting systemic disease, if calculations based on uveal melanoma doubling times are accepted.6,7 Finally, the follow-up times, although impressive, were perhaps insufficient to detect differences between treatments in preventing metastasis. A meta-analysis of breast cancer patients indicates that an adverse effect of local treatment failure on mortality takes about 15 years to become evident statistically.8 Few COMS patients were followed up for 10 years and there is little power to detect differences in this area of the survival curves. The reassurance provided by COMS is not as statistically sound as one might like.

The COMS would probably have reached exactly the same conclusions even if the sample sizes and follow-up were sufficient. Basic science research elsewhere has revealed that uveal melanomas develop nonrandom chromosomal abnormalities such as monosomy 3, which correlate strongly with mortality.9,10 These findings support the hypothesis that there are 2 subtypes of uveal melanoma: high-grade melanomas, which are all fatal because they metastasize before treatment of the primary tumor, and low-grade melanomas, which grow slowly without ever metastasizing, even if untreated. There is growing suspicion that with medium and large uveal melanomas, ocular treatment is only palliative and that it is only with small tumors that there is any hope of preventing metastasis. In concentrating on medium-sized and large tumors, the COMS may have backed the wrong hypothesis regarding the time of onset of metastatic spread of melanoma from the eye. Future studies evaluating how ocular treatment influences survival should ideally focus on patients with a “small” melanoma, in whom any opportunities for preventing or delaying metastatic disease are greatest.

Unfortunately, we cannot identify clinically the minority of small melanomas that are life-threatening and we do not know when high-grade tumors start to metastasize. Patients with a “good melanoma” are therefore overtreated, unnecessarily sacrificing vision and the eye, whereas those with “bad” tumor may be treated only belatedly, perhaps after preventable metastatic spread has occurred.11 The COMS observational results will help design future investigations addressing the management of small melanocytic tumors of uncertain metastatic potential.12

In view of the profound prognostic differences between low-grade and high-grade uveal melanomas, some form of tumor grading at the time of initial treatment should ideally be performed routinely, as happens with other cancers. Routine grading would enhance the evaluation of ocular treatments with respect to ocular and systemic outcomes and should reduce the number of patients required for such studies. Grading would probably involve routine biopsy, which should stimulate interest in histological and cytogenetic markers of tumor grade. The COMS pathological investigation of 1527 eyes with uveal melanoma provides much information on the histology of these tumors.13 Such data would become more meaningful if correlated with survival. This tissue bank and the accompanying survival data could prove invaluable in validating markers of tumor grade.

The COMS publications on ocular and psychological outcomes after brachytherapy and enucleation are important additions to the literature, especially because the data originate from many independent treatment centers. The brachytherapy with iodine 125 was followed by high rates of visual loss, enucleation, and local treatment failure so that any initial gains in quality of life vis-à-vis enucleation diminished over time.1416 The COMS concluded that this analysis allows individual patients and their physicians to make informed choices regarding treatment based on personal preferences; however, quality of life was not measured in relation to factors such as tumor size and location, visual acuity in each eye, and the development of any complications. Furthermore, one wonders whether ocular morbidity after brachytherapy was caused by the choice of plaque isotope (ie, iodine 125) or whether it reflected the surgeons' inexperience in centers treating small numbers of patients (no slur intended as internationally most patients with uveal melanoma are treated by surgeons who administer brachytherapy infrequently). In any case, I hope that these COMS results will encourage future investigations comparing brachytherapy with iodine 125 with brachytherapy with ruthenium 106 as well as with proton beam and stereotactic radiotherapy. Future evaluations of patient care should take into account the fact that more centers now offer a wide range of therapies, which allows for selecting the best treatment and combining different modalities to improve results.

There is scope for more studies, such as treatment of juxtapapillary melanomas, iris melanomas, and melanomas with extraocular extension, not to mention adjuvant systemic therapy in high-risk patients. Thanks to the COMS, participating clinicians in many centers have learned how to define and measure variables and outcomes in a uniform manner. In addition, ophthalmic researchers have gained vast experience in conducting multicenter studies.17 Measures are required urgently to preserve this precious COMS know-how. It would be ideal if perpetual collaborative studies could be undertaken, routinely categorizing all patients and following every patient until death. Multicenter collaboration would also help participating centers improve their own standards of care by comparing their outcomes with those of other centers, anonymously or otherwise.

The COMS may not have answered the (possibly unanswerable) question, “Do I take the eye out or leave it in?”; however, it has provided a wealth of knowledge and information yet to be fully reaped. This reminds me of the fable about a farmer who told his sons that they would find a treasure in a neglected field. They did not unearth any gold, but having dug up the entire ground, they decided to raise a crop and were rewarded by a bumper harvest more valuable than the trove they imagined.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Correspondence: Bertil Damato, MD, PhD, FRCOphth, Ocular Oncology Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Prescot Street, Liverpool L7 8XP, England (bertil@damato.co.uk).

Submitted for Publication: November 28, 2006; accepted November 29, 2006.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Additional Contributions: I thank Ian Campbell, Sarah Coupland, Carrol Gamble, Tero Kivelä, William R. Lee, Jacob Pe’er, and Stefan Suciu for their advice.

Zimmerman  LEMcLean  IWFoster  WD Does enucleation of the eye containing a malignant melanoma prevent or accelerate the dissemination of tumour cells. Br J Ophthalmol 1978;62 (6) 420- 425
PubMed Link to Article
Manschot  WAvan Strik  R Is irradiation a justifiable treatment of choroidal melanoma? analysis of published results. Br J Ophthalmol 1987;71 (5) 348- 352
PubMed Link to Article
Hawkins  BS The Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) randomized trial of pre-enucleation radiation of large choroidal melanoma, IV: ten-year mortality findings and prognostic factors. COMS report number 24. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;138 (6) 936- 951
PubMed Link to Article
Kilic  EStijnen  Tde Jong  PT  et al.  Reduced melanoma-related mortality in uveal melanoma by preenucleation radiotherapy. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123 (10) 1363- 1367
PubMed Link to Article
Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group, The COMS randomized trial of iodine 125 brachytherapy for choroidal melanoma, V: twelve-year mortality rates and prognostic factors. COMS Report No. 28. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124 (12) 1684- 1693
PubMed Link to Article
Manschot  WAvan Strik  R Uveal melanoma: therapeutic consequences of doubling times and irradiation results: a review. Int Ophthalmol 1992;16 (2) 91- 99
PubMed Link to Article
Eskelin  SPyrhonen  SSummanen  PHahka-Kemppinen  MKivela  T Tumor doubling times in metastatic malignant melanoma of the uvea: tumor progression before and after treatment. Ophthalmology 2000;107 (8) 1443- 1449
PubMed Link to Article
Clarke  MCollins  RDarby  S  et al.  Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;366 (9503) 2087- 2106
PubMed Link to Article
Prescher  GBornfeld  NHirche  HHorsthemke  BJockel  KHBecher  R Prognostic implications of monosomy 3 in uveal melanoma. Lancet 1996;347 (9010) 1222- 1225
PubMed Link to Article
Scholes  AGDamato  BENunn  JHiscott  PGrierson  IField  JK Monosomy 3 in uveal melanoma: correlation with clinical and histologic predictors of survival. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44 (3) 1008- 1011
PubMed Link to Article
Straatsma  BRDiener-West  MCaldwell  REngstrom  RE Mortality after deferral of treatment or no treatment for choroidal melanoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;136 (1) 47- 54
PubMed Link to Article
Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group, Factors predictive of growth and treatment of small choroidal melanoma: COMS Report No. 5. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115 (12) 1537- 1544
PubMed Link to Article
Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group, Histopathologic characteristics of uveal melanomas in eyes enucleated from the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study: COMS report No. 6. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125 (6) 745- 766
PubMed Link to Article
Melia  BMAbramson  DHAlbert  DM  et al.  Collaborative ocular melanoma study (COMS) randomized trial of I-125 brachytherapy for medium choroidal melanoma, I: visual acuity after 3 years. COMS report No. 16. Ophthalmology 2001;108 (2) 348- 366
PubMed Link to Article
Jampol  LMMoy  CSMurray  TG  et al.  The COMS randomized trial of iodine 125 brachytherapy for choroidal melanoma, IV: local treatment failure and enucleation in the first 5 years after brachytherapy. COMS report No. 19. Ophthalmology 2002;109 (12) 2197- 2206
PubMed Link to Article
Melia  MMoy  CSReynolds  SM  et al.  Quality of life after iodine 125 brachytherapy vs enucleation for choroidal melanoma: 5-year results from the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study. COMS QOLS Report No. 3. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124 (2) 226- 238
PubMed Link to Article
Diener-West  MHawkins  BS Changing current practice: implementing large multicenter trials for a rare condition. Appl Clin Trials 2002;11 (9) 48- 54

Figures

Tables

References

Zimmerman  LEMcLean  IWFoster  WD Does enucleation of the eye containing a malignant melanoma prevent or accelerate the dissemination of tumour cells. Br J Ophthalmol 1978;62 (6) 420- 425
PubMed Link to Article
Manschot  WAvan Strik  R Is irradiation a justifiable treatment of choroidal melanoma? analysis of published results. Br J Ophthalmol 1987;71 (5) 348- 352
PubMed Link to Article
Hawkins  BS The Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) randomized trial of pre-enucleation radiation of large choroidal melanoma, IV: ten-year mortality findings and prognostic factors. COMS report number 24. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;138 (6) 936- 951
PubMed Link to Article
Kilic  EStijnen  Tde Jong  PT  et al.  Reduced melanoma-related mortality in uveal melanoma by preenucleation radiotherapy. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123 (10) 1363- 1367
PubMed Link to Article
Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group, The COMS randomized trial of iodine 125 brachytherapy for choroidal melanoma, V: twelve-year mortality rates and prognostic factors. COMS Report No. 28. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124 (12) 1684- 1693
PubMed Link to Article
Manschot  WAvan Strik  R Uveal melanoma: therapeutic consequences of doubling times and irradiation results: a review. Int Ophthalmol 1992;16 (2) 91- 99
PubMed Link to Article
Eskelin  SPyrhonen  SSummanen  PHahka-Kemppinen  MKivela  T Tumor doubling times in metastatic malignant melanoma of the uvea: tumor progression before and after treatment. Ophthalmology 2000;107 (8) 1443- 1449
PubMed Link to Article
Clarke  MCollins  RDarby  S  et al.  Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;366 (9503) 2087- 2106
PubMed Link to Article
Prescher  GBornfeld  NHirche  HHorsthemke  BJockel  KHBecher  R Prognostic implications of monosomy 3 in uveal melanoma. Lancet 1996;347 (9010) 1222- 1225
PubMed Link to Article
Scholes  AGDamato  BENunn  JHiscott  PGrierson  IField  JK Monosomy 3 in uveal melanoma: correlation with clinical and histologic predictors of survival. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44 (3) 1008- 1011
PubMed Link to Article
Straatsma  BRDiener-West  MCaldwell  REngstrom  RE Mortality after deferral of treatment or no treatment for choroidal melanoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;136 (1) 47- 54
PubMed Link to Article
Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group, Factors predictive of growth and treatment of small choroidal melanoma: COMS Report No. 5. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115 (12) 1537- 1544
PubMed Link to Article
Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group, Histopathologic characteristics of uveal melanomas in eyes enucleated from the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study: COMS report No. 6. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125 (6) 745- 766
PubMed Link to Article
Melia  BMAbramson  DHAlbert  DM  et al.  Collaborative ocular melanoma study (COMS) randomized trial of I-125 brachytherapy for medium choroidal melanoma, I: visual acuity after 3 years. COMS report No. 16. Ophthalmology 2001;108 (2) 348- 366
PubMed Link to Article
Jampol  LMMoy  CSMurray  TG  et al.  The COMS randomized trial of iodine 125 brachytherapy for choroidal melanoma, IV: local treatment failure and enucleation in the first 5 years after brachytherapy. COMS report No. 19. Ophthalmology 2002;109 (12) 2197- 2206
PubMed Link to Article
Melia  MMoy  CSReynolds  SM  et al.  Quality of life after iodine 125 brachytherapy vs enucleation for choroidal melanoma: 5-year results from the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study. COMS QOLS Report No. 3. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124 (2) 226- 238
PubMed Link to Article
Diener-West  MHawkins  BS Changing current practice: implementing large multicenter trials for a rare condition. Appl Clin Trials 2002;11 (9) 48- 54

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

860 Views
14 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Melanoma

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Make the Diagnosis: Melanoma