BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to assess the best available evidence for the use of isolated limb perfusion. METHODS: Following the principles of Evidence-Based Medicine, we reviewed the best available evidence for isolated limb perfusion (ILP) for melanoma and soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the limb. RESULTS: Adjuvant ILP with melphalan (M-ILP) to wide local excision cannot be recommended for patients with primary melanoma with a limited regional benefit and no increase in overall survival (level 1b evidence). Prophylactic M-ILP next to the excision of recurrent melanoma has resulted in a nonsignificant decrease in recurrence rate (33% to 50%), with a significantly longer recurrence-free interval (10 to 17 months), but no survival benefit (level 2b evidence). Therapeutic M-ILP, with or without tumor-necrosis factor alpha and interferon gamma (T(I)M-ILP), seems indicated in unresectable melanoma (level 3 to 4 evidence). In unresectable STS of the limbs, limb salvage can be obtained in 57% to 86% of patients with neoadjuvant T(I)M-ILP (level 3 evidence). A comparison of level 3 to 4 studies on ILP and other neoadjuvant treatment modalities for unresectable STS shows that ILP results in the highest limb salvage rate with the lowest complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on level 3 to 4 evidence, ILP is indicated in unresectable locoregional (recurrent) melanoma and unresectable STS of the limbs. Level 1 and 2b evidence does show an effect of prophylactic ILP on micrometastatic disease in locoregional (recurrent) melanoma of the limb. ILP seems the most effective limb sparing, neoadjuvant treatment modality when compared with other neoadjuvant treatment options for unresectable STS of the limb (level 3 to 4 evidence), although randomized studies are lacking.
BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to assess the best available evidence for the use of isolated limb perfusion. METHODS: Following the principles of Evidence-Based Medicine, we reviewed the best available evidence for isolated limb perfusion (ILP) for melanoma and soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the limb. RESULTS: Adjuvant ILP with melphalan (M-ILP) to wide local excision cannot be recommended for patients with primary melanoma with a limited regional benefit and no increase in overall survival (level 1b evidence). Prophylactic M-ILP next to the excision of recurrent melanoma has resulted in a nonsignificant decrease in recurrence rate (33% to 50%), with a significantly longer recurrence-free interval (10 to 17 months), but no survival benefit (level 2b evidence). Therapeutic M-ILP, with or without tumor-necrosis factor alpha and interferon gamma (T(I)M-ILP), seems indicated in unresectable melanoma (level 3 to 4 evidence). In unresectable STS of the limbs, limb salvage can be obtained in 57% to 86% of patients with neoadjuvant T(I)M-ILP (level 3 evidence). A comparison of level 3 to 4 studies on ILP and other neoadjuvant treatment modalities for unresectable STS shows that ILP results in the highest limb salvage rate with the lowest complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on level 3 to 4 evidence, ILP is indicated in unresectable locoregional (recurrent) melanoma and unresectable STS of the limbs. Level 1 and 2b evidence does show an effect of prophylactic ILP on micrometastatic disease in locoregional (recurrent) melanoma of the limb. ILP seems the most effective limb sparing, neoadjuvant treatment modality when compared with other neoadjuvant treatment options for unresectable STS of the limb (level 3 to 4 evidence), although randomized studies are lacking.
Authors: M Ballesteros; N Montero; A López-Pousa; G Urrútia; I Solà; G Rada; H Pardo-Hernandez; X Bonfill Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 3.405