Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.,The overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma is short, the evidence for effectiveness of treatments is limited, and no consensus on the choice of treatment exists.,We aimed to advance interpretation of OS as an outcome by pooling peer-reviewed data.,The design is a systematic review and meta-analysis.,We searched PubMed from 1 January 1980, to 29 March 2017, for articles reporting patient-level survival in Kaplan-Meier or numerical form.,We digitized survival graphs, pooled individual survival times, calculated median OS by treatment modality, and compared each modality by the log-rank test and Cox regression using conventional chemotherapy (CHT) as a reference.,Individual-level data were obtained from 78 articles with 2494 patients.,The median OS across all treatment modalities was 1.07 years (range: 0.59-2.50 years).,Pooled OS reported after isolated hepatic perfusion [median OS: 1.34 years; hazard ratio (HR): 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-0.97, P = 0.0040], immunoembolization (median OS: 1.63; HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-1.00, P = 0.0080), and surgery (median OS: 1.43; HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.92-0.96, P < 0.0001) was longer, and after checkpoint inhibitor shorter (median OS: 0.59; HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.06-1.20, P < 0.0001) than after CHT (median OS: 0.91 years), but subject to identifiable confounding factors.,OS following other modalities did not differ from CHT.,Reported OS was unassociated with the decade of publication, but depended on the percentage of first-line treated patients.,Our results suggest no clinically significant difference in OS by treatment modality or decade.,Most of the difference in reported OS likely is attributable to surveillance, selection, and publication bias rather than treatment-related prolongation.,Our pooled data provide benchmarks for future trials.
Objective To quantify the accuracy and reproducibility of pathologists’ diagnoses of melanocytic skin lesions.,Design Observer accuracy and reproducibility study.,Setting 10 US states.,Participants Skin biopsy cases (n=240), grouped into sets of 36 or 48.,Pathologists from 10 US states were randomized to independently interpret the same set on two occasions (phases 1 and 2), at least eight months apart.,Main outcome measures Pathologists’ interpretations were condensed into five classes: I (eg, nevus or mild atypia); II (eg, moderate atypia); III (eg, severe atypia or melanoma in situ); IV (eg, pathologic stage T1a (pT1a) early invasive melanoma); and V (eg, ≥pT1b invasive melanoma).,Reproducibility was assessed by intraobserver and interobserver concordance rates, and accuracy by concordance with three reference diagnoses.,Results In phase 1, 187 pathologists completed 8976 independent case interpretations resulting in an average of 10 (SD 4) different diagnostic terms applied to each case.,Among pathologists interpreting the same cases in both phases, when pathologists diagnosed a case as class I or class V during phase 1, they gave the same diagnosis in phase 2 for the majority of cases (class I 76.7%; class V 82.6%).,However, the intraobserver reproducibility was lower for cases interpreted as class II (35.2%), class III (59.5%), and class IV (63.2%).,Average interobserver concordance rates were lower, but with similar trends.,Accuracy using a consensus diagnosis of experienced pathologists as reference varied by class: I, 92% (95% confidence interval 90% to 94%); II, 25% (22% to 28%); III, 40% (37% to 44%); IV, 43% (39% to 46%); and V, 72% (69% to 75%).,It is estimated that at a population level, 82.8% (81.0% to 84.5%) of melanocytic skin biopsy diagnoses would have their diagnosis verified if reviewed by a consensus reference panel of experienced pathologists, with 8.0% (6.2% to 9.9%) of cases overinterpreted by the initial pathologist and 9.2% (8.8% to 9.6%) underinterpreted.,Conclusion Diagnoses spanning moderately dysplastic nevi to early stage invasive melanoma were neither reproducible nor accurate in this large study of pathologists in the USA.,Efforts to improve clinical practice should include using a standardized classification system, acknowledging uncertainty in pathology reports, and developing tools such as molecular markers to support pathologists’ visual assessments.