1,270
Views
47
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Mini-Review

Uveal Melanoma Risk Factors: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses

, , &
Pages 1085-1093 | Received 17 Jul 2016, Accepted 14 Feb 2017, Published online: 11 May 2017
 

ABSTRACT

Purpose: There is currently no clinical risk-assessment tool allowing identification of patients at risk for developing uveal melanoma (UM) who might benefit from regular screening. As a first step toward the elaboration of such a tool, we systematically reviewed UM risk factors already established by meta-analysis.

Methods: Two reviewers independently screened Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science from their respective inception dates until July 2016 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. Eligible studies were meta-analyses or systematic reviews providing pooled odds ratios (ORs) of risk factors for UM development or sufficient information to calculate them. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool.

Results: Four meta-analyses with a mean methodological quality score of 65.9% (min: 54.5%; max: 72.7%) were included. The following significant risk factors were identified: atypical cutaneous nevi (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.10–7.26), welding (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.20–3.51), occupational cooking (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.33–2.46), fair skin color (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.31–2.47), light eye color (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.31–2.34), common cutaneous nevi (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.27–2.39), propensity to sunburn (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.29–2.09), iris nevi (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.03–2.27), and cutaneous freckles (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09–1.49). Non-significant factors included outdoor leisure activity, occupational sunlight exposure, latitude of birth, and hair color.

Conclusion: Moderate quality of evidence determined nine significant risk factors for developing UM. Knowledge of these variables will assist researchers in the elaboration of a formal risk-assessment tool allowing clinicians to estimate susceptibility to the disease and necessity of regular screening.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Jose Joao Mansure, Eugen Lungu and Tiffany Porraccio for their technical and/or intellectual support.

Declaration of interest

No conflicting relationship exists for any author.

Funding

This work was supported by the McGill University Health Center Research Institute and Foundations, Montreal, Canada.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental data for this paper can be accessed on the publisher’s website.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the McGill University Health Center Research Institute and Foundations, Montreal, Canada.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 555.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.