Melanoma is a malignancy that originates from the neoplastic proliferation of melanin-producing cells known as melanocytes, which can be primarily found in the skin, ocular region and mucous membranes. Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most frequently occurring non-cutaneous melanoma and is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults [1]. The uveal tract, a layer underlying the sclera of the eye, includes the iris, ciliary body and choroid. Around 95% of uveal melanomas arise from the choroidal melanocytes. 1. Epidemiology The worldwide incidence of UM is estimated to be close to 4 to 5 Uveal melanoma (UM), the most frequently occurring non-cutaneous melanoma and most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults, arises from the melanocytes of the choroid in approximately 95% of cases. Prompt diagnosis and treatment is vital as primary tumor size is one of the key factors associated with survival. Despite recent advances in management, more than half of the patients develop metastatic disease which portends poor survival. Currently, treatment options for UM include local resection, enucleation, plaque brachytherapy, and/or particle beam radiotherapy (RT). Enucleation was initially the standard of care in the management of UM, but a shift towards eye-preserving therapeutic choices such as RT and local resection has been noted in recent decades. Plaque brachytherapy, a form of localized RT, is the most popular option and is now the preferred treatment modality for a majority of UM cases. In this review we discuss the etiopathogenesis, clinical presentation and diagnosis of UM and place a special emphasis on its therapeutic options. Furthermore, we review the current literature on UM management and propose a functional treatment algorithm for non-metastatic disease.

helped create a map of the radiation oncology clinic. They received no compensation for their contribution. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation provided support staff.

BACKGROUND Despite consensus guidelines, concern about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) transmission has dissuaded patients with cancer from seeking medical care. Studies have shown that contaminated surfaces may contain viable virus for up to 72 hours in laboratory settings. The purpose of this study was to investigate contamination of SARS‐CoV‐2 on commonly used environmental surfaces in a tertiary cancer care center. METHODS This study evaluated the incidence of SARS‐CoV‐2 viral RNA in high‐touch outpatient and inpatient cancer center spaces. Surfaces were tested over a 2‐week period after patient or staff exposure but before scheduled disinfection services according to the World Health Organization protocols for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) surface sampling. Samples were analyzed via reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction for the presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA. RESULTS Two hundred four environmental samples were obtained from inpatient and outpatient oncology clinics and infusion suites, and they were categorized as 1) public areas, 2) staff areas, or 3) medical equipment. One hundred thirty surfaces from 2 outpatient hematology and oncology clinics and 36 surfaces from an inpatient leukemia/lymphoma/chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell unit were examined, and all 166 samples were negative for SARS‐CoV‐2. One of 38 samples (2.6%) from COVID‐19+ inpatient units was positive. Altogether, the positive test rate for SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA across all surfaces was 0.5% (1 of 204). CONCLUSIONS This prospective, systematic quality assurance investigation of real‐world environmental surfaces, performed in inpatient and outpatient hematology/oncology units, revealed overall negligible detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA when strict mitigation strategies against COVID‐19 transmission were instituted. LAY SUMMARY The potential risks of nosocomial infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) have deterred patients with cancer from seeking timely care despite consensus guidelines. This study has found negligible rates of environmental contamination with SARS‐CoV‐2 across a multitude of commonly used surfaces in outpatient and inpatient hematology/oncology settings with adherence to strict infection control protocols.

Background/Aim: Palbociclib is an FDAapproved cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor for the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Limited information is available regarding the toxicity of palbociclib and concurrent radiation therapy. Case Report: Herein, we report a case of esophageal toxicity in a patient treated with palbociclib and radiation therapy. A 63-year-old woman was treated with palbociclib followed by palliative radiation therapy. The patient presented three days after completing radiation therapy with severe odynophagia, and dysphagia and was found to have grade 2-3 esophageal ulcers. Palbociclib and radiation therapy was held on admission, and a resolution of her symptoms and improvement in her oral intake was noted at which time she was restarted on palbociclib with no further radiation treatment. Conclusion: Caution is advised when patients are undergoing concurrent palbociclib and even low-dose palliative radiation treatment. In these patients, providers should maintain a high index of suspicion for toxicities such as dermatitis or mucositis.