Does ocular treatment of uveal melanoma influence survival?

Treatment of uveal (intraocular) melanoma is aimed at prolonging life, if possible conserving the eye and useful vision. About 50% of patients develop fatal metastatic disease despite successful eradication of the primary intraocular tumour. The effect of ocular treatment on survival is unknown, because the same survival data from case series can be interpreted in different ways. Treatment is therefore based on intuition and varies greatly between centres. Randomised trials of treatment vs non-treatment of asymptomatic tumours are desirable but would be controversial, difficult, expensive and possibly inconclusive. Strategies for coping with uncertainty are needed to avoid unethical care

Concomitant primary breast carcinoma and primary choroidal melanoma: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Choroidal melanoma and choroidal metastasis are distinct pathological entities with very different treatments and prognoses. They may be difficult to distinguish to the untrained observer.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A case of concomitant choroidal melanoma in a woman with primary breast carcinoma is described. The choroidal lesion was thought initially to be a metastasis, and treated with external beam radiotherapy. The tumour did not regress but remained stable in size for a period of three years. Following referral to an ophthalmologist, the diagnosis was revised after re-evaluation of the clinical, ultrasonographic and angiographic findings.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although metastases are the most common ocular tumour, a differential diagnosis of a concurrent primary ocular malignancy should always be considered, even in patients with known malignant disease. Thorough ophthalmic evaluation is important, as multiple primary malignancies may occur concomitantly. The prognostic and therapeutic implications of accurate diagnosis by an ophthalmologist are of profound significance to affected patients and their families.</p

Expression of the SST receptor 2 in uveal melanoma is not a prognostic marker

Introduction: Uveal melanoma (UM) cells and neurohormone-producing cells both originate from the neural crest. Somatostatin receptors subtype 2 (SSTR2) are over-expressed in several tumors, often from neuroendocrine origin, and synthetic antagonists like octreotide and octreotate are being used as diagnostic or therapeutic agents. We investigated the SSTR2 expression in UM, and determined whether this expression was related to prognosis of the disease. Materials and methods: UM cell lines and fresh primary UM samples were tested for SSTR2 expression by autoradiography (AR) using 125I-Tyr3-octreotate. Furthermore, UM cell lines were analyzed for SSTR2 mRNA expression with quantitative real-time RT-PCR. Results: Using AR, cell-surface SSTR2 expression was demonstrated in two UM metastatic cell lines, but no expression was detected in three cell lines derived from primary UM. However, all primary and metastatic UM cell lines showed mRNA expression levels for SSTR2 using quantitative real-time RT-PCR. Only three of 14 primary UM demonstrated moderate SSTR2 expression, and this expression was not significantly associated with tumor-free survival or any tested prognostic factor. Conclusions: Based on the rare and low expression of SSTR2 found in primary UM specimens and in UM cell lines, we conclude that SSTR2 is not widely expressed in UM. Furthermore, SSTR2 expression was not associated with tumor-free survival and prognostic factors. Therefore SSTR2 is not suited as prognostic marker or therapeutic target in UM

Treatment of disseminated ocular melanoma with sequential fotemustine, interferon α, and interleukin 2

Malignant melanoma of the uvea is remarkable for purely haematogenous dissemination and its tendency to metastasise to the liver. Although the liver is involved in up to 95% of patients, 50% of these also develop extrahepatic metastases, most often in the lungs, bone, skin, and brain. The only effective treatments reported to date relied on hepatic arterial chemoembolisation or -perfusion. The objective of this study was to establish a therapy protocol addressing patients with both sole liver involvement and systemic disease. Forty-eight patients with metastatic ocular melanoma received fotemustine 100 mg m−2 either as 60-min infusion into the hepatic artery or as 15-min infusion via a peripheral vein, depending on the metastatic sites involved, i.e., restriction to the liver or hepatic together with extrahepatic disease. For the first treatment cycle this infusion was repeated after one week. For all cycles, subsequent to a three week resting period, patients received an immunotherapy consisting of subcutaneous interleukin 2 and interferon α2. Although objective responses were more frequent within the cohort receiving intraarterial fotemustine (21.7 vs 8%), this difference did not translate into a significant benefit in overall survival, i.e., 369 and 349 days, respectively. Of note, this overall survival is much longer than that repeatedly reported for stage IV uveal melanoma not treated with fotemustine, suggesting a therapeutic activity of this cytostatic drug even after systemic administration

Anti-Interferon Autoantibodies in Autoimmune Polyendocrinopathy Syndrome Type 1

BACKGROUND: The autoimmune regulator (AIRE) gene influences thymic self-tolerance induction. In autoimmune polyendocrinopathy syndrome type 1 (APS1; OMIM 240300), recessive AIRE mutations lead to autoimmunity targetting endocrine and other epithelial tissues, although chronic candidiasis usually appears first. Autoimmunity and chronic candidiasis can associate with thymomas as well. Patients with these tumours frequently also have high titre immunoglobulin G autoantibodies neutralising type I interferon (IFN)–α and IFN-ω, which are secreted signalling proteins of the cytokine superfamily involved in both innate and adaptive immunity. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We tested for serum autoantibodies to type I IFNs and other immunoregulatory cytokines using specific binding and neutralisation assays. Unexpectedly, in 60/60 Finnish and 16/16 Norwegian APS1 patients with both AIRE alleles mutated, we found high titre neutralising immunoglobulin G autoantibodies to most IFN-α subtypes and especially IFN-ω (60% homologous to IFN-α)—mostly in the earliest samples. We found lower titres against IFN-β (30% homologous to IFN-α) in 23% of patients; two-thirds of these (from Finland only) also had low titres against the distantly related “type III IFN” (IFN-λ1; alias interleukin-29). However, autoantibodies to the unrelated type II IFN, IFN-γ, and other immunoregulatory cytokines, such as interleukin-10 and interleukin-12, were much rarer and did not neutralise. Neutralising titres against type I IFNs averaged even higher in patients with APS1 than in patients with thymomas. Anti–type I IFN autoantibodies preceded overt candidiasis (and several of the autoimmune disorders) in the informative patients, and persisted for decades thereafter. They were undetectable in unaffected heterozygous relatives of APS1 probands (except for low titres against IFN-λ1), in APS2 patients, and in isolated cases of the endocrine diseases most typical of APS1, so they appear to be APS1-specific. Looking for potentially autoimmunising cell types, we found numerous IFN-α(+) antigen-presenting cells—plus strong evidence of local IFN secretion—in the normal thymic medulla (where AIRE expression is strongest), and also in normal germinal centres, where it could perpetuate these autoantibody responses once initiated. IFN-α2 and IFN-α8 transcripts were also more abundant in antigen-presenting cells cultured from an APS1 patient's blood than from age-matched healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: These apparently spontaneous autoantibody responses to IFNs, particularly IFN-α and IFN-ω, segregate like a recessive trait; their high “penetrance” is especially remarkable for such a variable condition. Their apparent restriction to APS1 patients implies practical value in the clinic, e.g., in diagnosing unusual or prodromal AIRE-mutant patients with only single components of APS1, and possibly in prognosis if they prove to predict its onset. These autoantibody responses also raise numerous questions, e.g., about the rarity of other infections in APS1. Moreover, there must also be clues to autoimmunising mechanisms/cell types in the hierarchy of preferences for IFN-ω, IFN-α8, IFN-α2, and IFN-β and IFN-λ1