PURPOSE: We conducted a phase I study of a 30-minute hepatic artery infusion of melphalan via a percutaneously placed catheter and hepatic venous hemofiltration using a double balloon catheter positioned in the retrohepatic inferior vena cava to shunt hepatic venous effluent through an activated charcoal filter and then to the systemic circulation. The purpose of the study was to demonstrate feasibility in an initial cohort and subsequently determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity of melphalan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The initial cohort (n = 12) was treated with 2.0 mg/kg of melphalan before dose escalation to 3.5 mg/kg (n = 16). Total hepatic drug delivery, systemic levels, and percent filter efficiency were determined. Patients were assessed for hepatic and systemic toxicity and response. RESULTS: A total of 74 treatments were administered to 28 patients. Twelve patients with primary and metastatic hepatic tumors received 30 treatments (mean, 2.5 per patient) at an initial melphalan dose of 2.0 mg/kg. At 3.5 mg/kg, a dose-limiting toxicity (neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia) was observed in two of six patients. Transient grade 3/4 hepatic and systemic toxicity was seen after 19% and 66% of treatments, respectively. An overall radiographic response rate of 30% was observed in treated patients. In the 10 patients with ocular melanoma, a 50% overall response rate was observed, including two complete responses. CONCLUSION: Delivery of melphalan via this system is feasible, with limited, manageable toxicity and evidence of substantial antitumor activity; 3 mg/kg is the maximum safe tolerated dose of melphalan administered via this technique.
PURPOSE: We conducted a phase I study of a 30-minute hepatic artery infusion of melphalan via a percutaneously placed catheter and hepatic venous hemofiltration using a double balloon catheter positioned in the retrohepatic inferior vena cava to shunt hepatic venous effluent through an activated charcoal filter and then to the systemic circulation. The purpose of the study was to demonstrate feasibility in an initial cohort and subsequently determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity of melphalan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The initial cohort (n = 12) was treated with 2.0 mg/kg of melphalan before dose escalation to 3.5 mg/kg (n = 16). Total hepatic drug delivery, systemic levels, and percent filter efficiency were determined. Patients were assessed for hepatic and systemic toxicity and response. RESULTS: A total of 74 treatments were administered to 28 patients. Twelve patients with primary and metastatic hepatic tumors received 30 treatments (mean, 2.5 per patient) at an initial melphalan dose of 2.0 mg/kg. At 3.5 mg/kg, a dose-limiting toxicity (neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia) was observed in two of six patients. Transient grade 3/4 hepatic and systemic toxicity was seen after 19% and 66% of treatments, respectively. An overall radiographic response rate of 30% was observed in treated patients. In the 10 patients with ocular melanoma, a 50% overall response rate was observed, including two complete responses. CONCLUSION: Delivery of melphalan via this system is feasible, with limited, manageable toxicity and evidence of substantial antitumor activity; 3 mg/kg is the maximum safe tolerated dose of melphalan administered via this technique.
Authors: N Kemeny; M Gonen; D Sullivan; L Schwartz; F Benedetti; L Saltz; J Stockman; Y Fong; W Jarnagin; J Bertino; W Tong; P Paty Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H R Alexander; S K Libutti; D L Bartlett; M Puhlmann; D L Fraker; L C Bachenheimer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: K A Yao; M S Talamonti; A Nemcek; P Angelos; H Chrisman; J Skarda; A B Benson; S Rao; R J Joehl Journal: Surgery Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Mace L Rothenberg; Amit M Oza; Robert H Bigelow; Jordan D Berlin; John L Marshall; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Lowell L Hart; Sunil Gupta; Carlos A Garay; Brent G Burger; Nathalie Le Bail; Daniel G Haller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Alicia Samuels; Asma Ghafoor; Elizabeth Ward; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Geert Maleux; Diethard Monbaliu; Chris Verslype; Christophe Casteleyn; Marc Van De Velde; Pieter Cornillie; Yvonne Hoogeveen; Eric Van Cutsem Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-05-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Martha M Kirstein; Steffen Marquardt; Nils Jedicke; Silke Marhenke; Wolfgang Koppert; Michael P Manns; Frank Wacker; Arndt Vogel Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Stanley P L Leong; Martin C Mihm; George F Murphy; Dave S B Hoon; Mohammed Kashani-Sabet; Sanjiv S Agarwala; Jonathan S Zager; Axel Hauschild; Vernon K Sondak; Valerie Guild; John M Kirkwood Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Marybeth S Hughes; Jonathan Zager; Mark Faries; H Richard Alexander; Richard E Royal; Bradford Wood; Junsung Choi; Kevin McCluskey; Eric Whitman; Sanjiv Agarwala; Gary Siskin; Charles Nutting; Mary Ann Toomey; Carole Webb; Tatiana Beresnev; James F Pingpank Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Eleonora M de Leede; Mark C Burgmans; Christian H Martini; Fred G J Tijl; Arian R van Erkel; Jaap Vuyk; Ellen Kapiteijn; Cornelis Verhoef; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Alexander L Vahrmeijer Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2016-07-31 Impact factor: 1.355