Contents
What We Learned
78 of 483 attendees (16%) across 31 countries shared their experience. Here is what they told us.
Key FindingsTop-line results at a glance: satisfaction, format preferences, and areas for improvement. Privacy concern flagged
Response ProfileWho responded: 31 countries, career stages from trainees to 20+ year veterans, 60% first-time or second-time attendees.
Scientific ProgramOverall quality rated 4.53/5. Keynotes and topic relevance both above 4.4. Q&A time mostly sufficient, but seniors want more.
Presentation FormatsPodium papers scored highest (4.52). Video e-posters scored lowest (4.12). 54% didn’t have enough poster time
Congress Structure77% prefer single room over concurrent sessions. 100% of 4-6 congress veterans chose single room Rio topic order preferred 6:1.
Topic CoverageWhere members want more: metastatic disease, imaging, non-melanoma, and ocular surface lead demand.
Workshops68% rated workshop interest 4 or 5. Trainees: 90%. Multiple respondents frustrated at being waitlisted for the dry lab.
RegistrationBoth registration (4.58) and abstract submission (4.59) rated highly.
Venue & LogisticsVenue overall 4.34/5 but AV/audio scored 3.97 — lowest in survey. AC temperature and WiFi also flagged.
Social EventsWelcome reception strong (4.47). Gala and White Carnival both below 4.0 — cost and food quality cited.
Virtual ExperienceOverall 4.42/5, but 83% felt only “Somewhat” included. Multi-room access and audio quality are the gaps.
Looking Ahead93% likely to return. 91% want mid-cycle programming. Strong retention signal
Cross-Field TrendsPatterns across questions: first-timer satisfaction effect, experience-to-single-room pipeline, Q&A gap by seniority, and more.
Attendee VoicesDirect quotes organized by theme — praise, critique, and workshop demand. Includes a moment to reflect on
Recommendations10 data-backed actions: 8 for Athens 2028, 2 for the society at large.
Overview
Key Findings
4.52 / 5
Overall satisfaction. 89% rated 4 or 5. First-timers rated highest (4.83).
93%
Likely or very likely to attend the next ISOO congress.
77%
Prefer single room with fewer talks. 100% of 4–6 congress veterans chose single room.
6 : 1
Prefer Rio topic order over traditional (46 vs. 8).
54%
Did not have enough time to view posters.
4.12 / 5
Video e-posters scored lowest. Only 58 of 78 rated them.
68%
Rated workshop interest 4 or 5. Trainees: 90%.
3.97 / 5
AV/audio — lowest single rating in the survey.
83%
Virtual attendees felt only “Somewhat” included.
91%
Interested in mid-cycle programming.
Action Required
Data Privacy Concern
Two respondents reported receiving promotional emails from sponsors (Castle Biosciences, Medison) sent using ISOO attendee contact data without the option to opt out. ISOO currently has no member-facing privacy policy and no data use agreement for board members. This requires immediate policy review, particularly given GDPR and international privacy requirements across ISOO’s 68+ member countries.
Demographics
Response Profile
Attendance
| Type | Count | % |
|---|
| In person | 66 | 85% |
| Virtual | 12 | 15% |
| Total | 78 | 100% |
Countries Represented (31)
| Responses | Countries |
|---|
| 19 | Brazil |
| 14 | United States |
| 4 | Italy |
| 3 | Argentina |
| 2 | Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, India, Kenya, Sweden, Turkey |
| 1 | Belgium, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom |
Career Stage
Congresses Attended
Survey Completion
All fields optional. Completion rates adjusted for conditional sections (virtual attendees did not see venue/social; in-person did not see virtual).
| Group | Visible Fields | Avg Answered | Completion |
|---|
| In person (n=66) | ~46 | 35.2 | 76% |
| Virtual (n=12) | ~41 | 30.6 | 75% |
Zero respondents answered fewer than 11 fields. 93% answered 30+. People engage when you ask the right questions.
Scientific Program
Program Quality
| Measure | Mean | n | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|
| Overall quality | 4.53 | 78 | 47 | 26 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Keynote lectures | 4.44 | 77 | 43 | 26 | 7 | 1 | 0 |
| Topic relevance | 4.45 | 78 | 50 | 17 | 7 | 4 | 0 |
Q&A Time
Senior members were most likely to say Q&A was too short (35% of seniors vs. 14% of early career).
Congress Structure
Format & Structure
Single Room vs. Concurrent Sessions
Option A: Fewer presentations per person (1–2 per presenter). Single room. Everyone sees everything.
Option B: More presentations per person (up to 3). Concurrent sessions in multiple rooms.
| Preference | Count | % |
|---|
| Option A: Single room | 59 | 77% |
| Option B: Concurrent sessions | 18 | 23% |
92% feel somewhat or very strongly about their preference. This is not a casual opinion.
By Experience Level
| Congresses | Option A | Option B | % Option A |
|---|
| 1st time | 15 | 9 | 63% |
| 2–3 | 16 | 6 | 73% |
| 4–6 | 17 | 0 | 100% |
| 7+ | 11 | 3 | 79% |
100% of 4–6 congress veterans chose single room. The more congresses attended, the stronger the preference. First-timers are the only group with meaningful support for concurrent sessions (37%).
Topic Order Across Days
Rio 2026 Order
Traditional ISOO Order
Pre-Day
Pre-Day
Pre-Day
Day 1
Retinoblastoma
Melanoma
Day 2
Uveal Melanoma
Melanoma + Other Intraocular + RB
Day 3
Non-Melanoma & Intraocular (AM)
Ocular Surface (PM)
Retinoblastoma
Day 4
Eyelid & Orbital Tumors
Conjunctiva & Orbit
| Preference | Count | % |
|---|
| Rio 2026 order | 46 | 60% |
| No preference | 22 | 29% |
| Traditional ISOO order | 8 | 10% |
Breaks
Topic Coverage
Where Members Want More
Multi-select: which topics would you like more coverage of?
Metastatic disease & systemic
Non-melanoma & intraocular
Radiation oncology / physics
Top 4 topics cluster tightly at 42–45%, suggesting broad demand rather than a single dominant gap.
Special Sessions
Workshops & Pre-Day
Pre-Day Sessions (Tuesday, March 17)
| Result |
|---|
| Attended | 37 (47%) |
| Did not attend | 39 (50%) |
| Rating (attendees only) | 4.46 / 5 |
Workshop Interest (Dry Lab)
Among trainees, 90% rated interest at 4 or 5 (9 of 10). Multiple respondents were frustrated at being waitlisted. Most-requested: biopsy (FNAB, iridocyclectomy), surgical videos, plaque on/off, orbital approaches, ultrasound, cadaveric workshops.
Registration
Registration & Abstract Submission
| Process | Mean | n |
|---|
| Online registration | 4.58 / 5 | 76 |
| Abstract submission | 4.59 / 5 | 63 |
Both processes rated highly with minimal concerns.
Venue & Logistics
Venue Ratings
| Measure | Mean | n |
|---|
| Venue overall (Sheraton Grand Rio) | 4.34 / 5 | 64 |
| Meeting rooms & AV | 3.97 / 5 | 64 |
| Signage & wayfinding | 4.19 / 5 | 63 |
AV/audio scored 3.97 — the lowest rating in the entire survey. Nine respondents rated Fair or Poor.
Congress App
What Attendees Reported
“The sound in the auditorium was poor and the AC was too cold.”
“It was very cold in the room during the whole congress and despite several requests to adapt airco. I got sick and several other colleagues as well.”
“AV, especially microphones, was very poorly done.”
“At the Sheraton there was NOT WIFI for the people that was not staying there.”
“The transport from Ritz Leblon to Sheraton is always late, and the route taken very long.”
Social Events
Social & Networking
| Event | Mean | n | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|
| Welcome reception | 4.47 | 58 | 38 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| White Carnival Party | 3.98 | 44 | 21 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 3 |
| Gala dinner | 3.98 | 45 | 22 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 3 |
Networking
What Attendees Said
“The social programs especially the gala dinner and white carnival party were too expensive. The quality of food for the gala dinner was not worth the cost.”
“The White Carnival location was very dangerous due to the high volume of stairs and no elevator or ramp. The welcome reception started 90 minutes late.”
“More options that do not require an extra (expensive) ticket!”
“Improve food options to include vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian options.”
“The opening ceremony and the cocktail were fantastic.”
Virtual Experience
Virtual Attendance
12 virtual attendees responded (15% of total).
| Measure | Result |
|---|
| Overall experience | 4.42 / 5 |
| Recording/stream quality | 4.33 / 5 |
| Felt adequately included | Somewhat: 83% • Yes: 8% |
Virtual in Future?
When circumstances require
What Virtual Attendees Said
“A separate link for each hall so that we can move between different zoom meetings similar to how we move physically between different halls.”
“The voice of presenter and during the discussion was unclear. Microphone system should be improved.”
“Some folks cannot attend due to high costs of travel so virtual is a necessary. Also all talks should be recorded and available to all attendees.”
“For attendees like me with interest only in retinoblastoma and genomics, offer 1 day attendance instead of 4 days.”
Looking Ahead
Satisfaction & Future Intent
Overall Satisfaction — 4.52 / 5
Likelihood to Return — 4.61 / 5
Mid-Cycle Programming
91% interested. Highest among trainees (100%), first-timers (96%), and mid-career (94%).
Analysis
Cross-Field Trends
Patterns found across different survey questions.
First-Timer Effect
4.83 vs 4.33
First-timers rated satisfaction significantly higher than 4+ congress veterans. Novelty drives delight; veterans have higher baselines.
Experience → Single Room
63% → 100%
Single-room preference increases with experience: 63% first-timers, 73% at 2-3, 100% at 4-6. Those who know ISOO best want to see everything.
Satisfaction → Return
88%
Of those who rated 5/5 satisfaction, 88% are “very likely” to return. Satisfaction directly predicts retention.
Q&A Gap by Seniority
35% vs 14%
35% of seniors said Q&A was too short vs. 14% of early career. Experienced clinicians want more debate time.
Poster Time → Format Pref
9 vs 2
Those who didn’t have enough poster time were 4.5x more likely to prefer traditional boards. Frustration pushes toward familiar formats.
Workshop × Career Stage
90% vs 44%
Trainees rated workshop interest 4+ at 90%. Seniors: 44%. Workshops are primarily a trainee and early-career draw.
Mid-Cycle × First-Timers
96%
96% of first-timers want mid-cycle programming. New members who just discovered ISOO want more engagement between congresses.
Virtual Paradox
83% ≠ 4.45
83% felt only “Somewhat” included, yet satisfaction was 4.45 — nearly matching in-person (4.53). They value access even when imperfect.
In Their Words
Attendee Voices
On the Scientific Program
“I really appreciated the format of having 2 or 3 speakers remain on the stage during the Q&A session. The discussions were more enriching than when questions and answers take place immediately after each presentation.”
“One main room for all sessions was excellent.”
“Sessions need to involve more radiation, pathology and medical oncology specialists as panel members to get beyond clinician expertise only.”
“Need panels looking at pro’s and cons — therapeutic vs prognostic biopsy were presented as a must for Castle Bioscience where throughout the world this is not standard practice.”
“There should have been more basic explanations of ocular oncology topics. These would be especially helpful for young, newly qualified physicians.”
“Good balance of new/groundbreaking and practical.”
On Congress Format
“One of the advantages of ISOO is being able to attend all sessions and keep one’s knowledge up to date across most areas of ocular oncology. When there are multiple parallel sessions, people tend to go where they need to be seen rather than where they would learn the most.”
“The structure, divided by disease per day, was great. That allows us to attend only the days that are interesting for us.”
“Need more controversy sessions where differing approaches can be looked at.”
“It would be interesting to incorporate non-ophthalmologists in the discussion and have panel discussions based on the topics presented.”
On Workshops
“You should have more of these workshops. I couldn’t attend any because I was always on the waiting lists. This could be one of the most useful sessions of the congress.”
“Anything dry or wet lab related is great. The intraocular biopsy dry lab was very well done, would love for it to be repeated.”
“Cadaveric workshops for orbital tumor biopsy or exenteration might be good.”
“Practical ultrasound use and protocols should be at every conference.”
Topics Requested
“Histopathologic correlations. Involvement of other specialties (medical oncology, pediatric oncology) in the management of ocular malignancies.”
“Liquid biopsy, innovative techniques/technologies, multidisciplinary.”
“AI will continue to be important. Dedicated advocacy sessions for ocular oncologists (and pathologists).”
“How to set up an ocular oncology center; resources and funding.”
“For controversial topics, it would be great to hear a discussion of how people approach these difficulties.”
Praise
“Congratulations on an incredible conference and successful handling of numerous challenges. Bravo.”
“All the discussions were very enriching. I really loved the intraocular biopsy workshop and the basic ocular oncology course for non-ocular oncologists.”
“They did an excellent job. Congratulations!!!”
A Moment to Reflect On
“There was a Japanese speaker, very learned, esteemed elder who was cut short abruptly by a female moderator on stage which was deeply upsetting to witness. She basically cut him off and signaled to the room not to direct questions towards him as his English was not fluent. After traveling such a long distance to get there to say his few words that must have been devastating.”
What’s Next
Recommendations
For Athens 2028
1. Maintain single-room format
77% prefer single room. 100% of 4-6 congress veterans. Limit to 1-2 oral presentations per presenter.
2. Keep the Rio topic order
60% preferred Rio order (RB → UM → Non-Melanoma/OS → Eyelid/Orbital). Only 10% preferred traditional.
3. Restructure poster sessions
54% didn’t have enough time. Video e-posters scored lowest. Consider longer windows, digital screens, and online post-congress access.
4. Expand workshop programming
68% rated interest 4-5 (trainees: 90%). Plan larger capacity, repeat across days. Top: biopsy, surgical videos, plaque, ultrasound.
5. Prioritize AV/audio quality
Lowest rating in survey (3.97). Most common free-text complaint. Professional sound engineering is essential.
6. Address venue comfort
AC too cold (4+ complaints, illness). WiFi for all attendees. Vet social venues for accessibility.
7. Improve virtual inclusion
83% felt only “Somewhat” included. Multi-room access, live Q&A, improved audio, single-day pricing.
8. Review social event pricing & logistics
Gala and White Carnival below 4.0. Cost and food quality top complaints. Vet venues for accessibility.
For the Society
9. Launch mid-cycle programming
91% interested. Strongest among trainees (100%) and first-timers (96%). Validates webinars and smaller meetings.
10. Establish a data privacy policy
Two respondents reported sponsor emails using ISOO data without opt-out. No privacy policy exists. Immediate action required given GDPR.
Social & Networking
Networking
What Attendees Said