Purpose This study evaluates the prognostic performance of a 15 gene expression profiling (GEP) assay that assigns primary posterior uveal melanomas to prognostic subgroups: class 1 (low metastatic risk) and class 2 (high metastatic risk). Design Prospective, multicenter study. Participants 459 patients with posterior uveal melanoma were enrolled from 12 independent centers. Testing Tumors were classified by GEP as class 1 or class 2. The first 260 samples were also analyzed for chromosome 3 status using a single nucleotide polymorphism assay. Net reclassification improvement analysis was performed to compare the prognostic accuracy of GEP to the 7th edition clinical Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) classification and to chromosome 3 status. Main Outcome Measures Patients were managed for their primary tumor and monitored for metastasis. Results The GEP assay successfully classified 446/459 (97.2%) cases. The GEP was class 1 in 276 cases (61.9%) and class 2 in 170 cases (38.1%). Median follow-up was 17.4 months (mean, 18.0 months). Metastasis was detected in 3 (1.1%) class 1 cases and 44 (25.9%) class 2 cases (log rank test, P<10−14). Although there was an association between GEP class 2 and monosomy 3 (Fisher exact test, P<0.0001), 54/260 (20.8%) tumors were discordant for GEP and chromosome 3 status, among which GEP demonstrated superior prognostic accuracy (log rank test, P=0.0001). Using multivariate Cox modeling, GEP class had a stronger independent association with metastasis than any other prognostic factor (P<0.0001). Chromosome 3 status did not contribute additional prognostic information that was independent of GEP (P=0.2). At three years follow-up, the net reclassification improvement of GEP over TNM classification was 0.43 (P=0.001) and 0.38 (P=0.004) over chromosome 3 status. Conclusions The GEP assay had a high technical success rate and was the most accurate prognostic marker among all of the factors analyzed. GEP provided a highly significant improvement in prognostic accuracy over clinical TNM classification and chromosome 3 status. Chromosome 3 status did not provide prognostic information that was independent of GEP.

Objective To compare the relative effectiveness of systemic corticosteroids plus immunosuppression when indicated (systemic therapy) versus fluocinolone acetonide implant (implant therapy) for non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis (uveitis). Design Randomized controlled parallel superiority trial. Participants Patients with active/recently active uveitis. Methods Participants were randomized (allocation ratio 1:1) to systemic or implant therapy at 23 centers (three countries). Implant-assigned participants with bilateral uveitis were assigned to have each eye that warranted study treatment implanted. Treatment-outcome associations were analyzed by assigned treatment for all eyes with uveitis. Main Outcome Measures Masked examiners measured the primary outcome: change in best-corrected visual acuity from baseline. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported quality of life (QoL), ophthalmologist-graded uveitis activity, and local and systemic complications of uveitis or therapy. Reading Center graders and glaucoma specialists assessing ocular complications were masked. Participants, ophthalmologists, and coordinators were unmasked. Results Among 255 patients randomized to implant and systemic therapy (479 eyes with uveitis), evaluating changes from baseline to 24 months, the implant and systemic therapy groups respectively had +6.0 vs. +3.2 letters' improvement in visual acuity (p=0.16, 95% confidence interval on difference in improvement between groups: −1.2 to +6.7 letters, positive values favoring implant), +11.4 vs. +6.8 units' vision-related QoL improvement (p=0.043), +0.02 vs. −0.02 change in EuroQol-EQ5D health utility (p=0.060), and 12% vs. 29% had active uveitis (p=0.001). Over 24 months, implant-assigned eyes had a higher risk of cataract surgery (80%, hazard ratio (HR) = 3.3, p<0.0001), treatment for elevated intraocular pressure (61%, HR=4.2, p<0.0001), and glaucoma (17%, HR = 4.2, p=0.0008). Systemic-assigned patients had more prescription-requiring infections (0.60 vs. 0.36/person-year, p=0.034), without notable long-term consequences; systemic adverse outcomes otherwise were unusual in both groups, with minimal differences between groups. Conclusion In each treatment group, mean visual acuity improved over 24 months, with neither approach superior to a degree detectable with the study's power. Therefore, the specific advantages and disadvantages identified should dictate selection between the alternative treatments in consideration of individual patients' particular circumstances. Systemic therapy with aggressive use of corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppression was well-tolerated, suggesting that this approach is reasonably safe for local and systemic inflammatory disorders.

Objective To evaluate the association of subretinal hyper-reflective material (SHRM) with visual acuity (VA), geographic atrophy (GA) and scar in the Comparison of Age related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) Design Prospective cohort study within a randomized clinical trial. Participants The 1185 participants in CATT. Methods Participants were randomly assigned to ranibizumab or bevacizumab treatment monthly or as-needed. Masked readers graded scar and GA on fundus photography and fluorescein angiography images, SHRM on time domain (TD) and spectral domain (SD) optical coherence tomography (OCT) throughout 104 weeks. Measurements of SHRM height and width in the fovea, within the center 1mm2, or outside the center 1mm2 were obtained on SD-OCT images at 56 (n=76) and 104 (n=66) weeks. VA was measured by certified examiners. Main Outcome Measures SHRM presence, location and size, and associations with VA, scar, and GA. Results Among all CATT participants, the percentage with SHRM at enrollment was 77%, decreasing to 68% at 4 weeks after treatment and 54% at 104 weeks. At 104 weeks, scar was present more often in eyes with persistent SHRM than eyes with SHRM that resolved (64% vs. 31%; p<0.0001). Among eyes with detailed evaluation of SHRM at weeks 56 (n=76) and 104 (n=66), mean [SE] VA letter score was 73.5 [2.8], 73.1 [3.4], 65.3 [3.5], and 63.9 [3.7] when SHRM was absent, present outside the central 1mm2, present within the central 1mm2 but not the foveal center, or present at the foveal center (p=0.02). SHRM was present at the foveal center in 43 (30%), within the central 1mm2 in 21 (15%) and outside the central 1mm2 in 19 (13%). When SHRM was present, the median maximum height in microns under the fovea, within the central 1 mm2 including the fovea and anywhere within the scan was 86; 120; and 122, respectively. VA was decreased with greater SHRM height and width (p<0.05). Conclusions SHRM is common in eyes with NVAMD and often persists after anti-VEGF treatment. At 2 years, eyes with scar were more likely to have SHRM than other eyes. Greater SHRM height and width were associated with worse VA. SHRM is an important morphological biomarker in eyes with NVAMD.

No abstract