BACKGROUND: Hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion (HILP) or isolated limb infusion (ILI) are well-accepted regional chemotherapy techniques for in-transit melanoma of extremity. The role and efficacy of repeat regional chemotherapy for recurrence and which salvage procedure is better remains debatable. We aimed to compare toxicities and clinical outcomes by procedure types and the sequence. METHODS: Data from 44 patients, who underwent repeat HILPs or ILIs from 3 institutions beginning 1997 to 2010, were retrospectively reviewed. Regional toxicity assessed by Wieberdink grade, systemic toxicity assessed by serum creatine phosphokinase level, length of hospital stay (LOS), response rates at 3 months after the procedure, and time to in-field progression (TTP) were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 44 patients, 46% were men and 54% women with a median age of 66 (range 29-85) years at diagnosis. The median follow-up was 21.4 (range 4-153) months. Of 70 ILIs and 28 HILPs, the following groups were identified: group A, ILI → ILI (n = 25); group B, ILI → HILP (n = 10); group C, HILP → ILI (n = 12); and group D, HILP → HILP (n = 3). The comparison of Wieberdink grade, serum creatine phosphokinase level, LOS, and response rate between procedures (HILP vs. ILI), between sequence (initial vs. repeat), and among their interactions showed no statistically significant differences. TTP after initial procedure did not differ between HILP and ILI (P = 0.08), and no survival difference was seen (P = 0.65) when TTP after repeat procedure was compared. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients tolerated repeat regional chemotherapy without increased toxicity or LOS. No statistical difference in clinical outcomes was noted when comparing repeat procedures, even though repeat HILPs showed higher complete response compared to repeat ILIs.
BACKGROUND: Hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion (HILP) or isolated limb infusion (ILI) are well-accepted regional chemotherapy techniques for in-transit melanoma of extremity. The role and efficacy of repeat regional chemotherapy for recurrence and which salvage procedure is better remains debatable. We aimed to compare toxicities and clinical outcomes by procedure types and the sequence. METHODS: Data from 44 patients, who underwent repeat HILPs or ILIs from 3 institutions beginning 1997 to 2010, were retrospectively reviewed. Regional toxicity assessed by Wieberdink grade, systemic toxicity assessed by serum creatine phosphokinase level, length of hospital stay (LOS), response rates at 3 months after the procedure, and time to in-field progression (TTP) were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 44 patients, 46% were men and 54% women with a median age of 66 (range 29-85) years at diagnosis. The median follow-up was 21.4 (range 4-153) months. Of 70 ILIs and 28 HILPs, the following groups were identified: group A, ILI → ILI (n = 25); group B, ILI → HILP (n = 10); group C, HILP → ILI (n = 12); and group D, HILP → HILP (n = 3). The comparison of Wieberdink grade, serum creatine phosphokinase level, LOS, and response rate between procedures (HILP vs. ILI), between sequence (initial vs. repeat), and among their interactions showed no statistically significant differences. TTP after initial procedure did not differ between HILP and ILI (P = 0.08), and no survival difference was seen (P = 0.65) when TTP after repeat procedure was compared. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients tolerated repeat regional chemotherapy without increased toxicity or LOS. No statistical difference in clinical outcomes was noted when comparing repeat procedures, even though repeat HILPs showed higher complete response compared to repeat ILIs.
Authors: F Di Filippo; A Calabrò; D Giannarelli; S Carlini; F Cavaliere; F Moscarelli; R Cavaliere Journal: Cancer Date: 1989-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Eva M Noorda; Bart Takkenberg; Bart C Vrouenraets; Omgo E Nieweg; Bert N van Geel; Alexander M M Eggermont; Guus A M Hart; Bin B R Kroon Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-04-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: W M Klop; B C Vrouenraets; B N van Geel; A M Eggermont; J M Klaase; O E Nieweg; B B Kroon Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: F C Wright; S Kellett; N J Look Hong; A Y Sun; T P Hanna; C Nessim; C A Giacomantonio; C F Temple-Oberle; X Song; T M Petrella Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Georgia M Beasley; Paul Speicher; Christina K Augustine; Paul C Dolber; Bercedis L Peterson; Ketan Sharma; Paul J Mosca; Richard Royal; Merrick Ross; Jonathan S Zager; Douglas S Tyler Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Michael J Carr; James Sun; Hidde M Kroon; John T Miura; Georgia M Beasley; Norma E Farrow; Paul J Mosca; Michael C Lowe; Clara R Farley; Youngchul Kim; Syeda Mahrukh Hussnain Naqvi; Dennis A Kirichenko; Aishwarya Potdar; Hala Daou; Dean Mullen; Jeffrey M Farma; Michael A Henderson; David Speakman; Jonathan Serpell; Keith A Delman; B Mark Smithers; Brendon J Coventry; Douglas S Tyler; John F Thompson; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joyce Wong; Y Ann Chen; Kate J Fisher; Georgia M Beasley; Douglas S Tyler; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Diego J Muilenburg; Georgia M Beasley; Zachary J Thompson; Ji-Hyun Lee; Douglas S Tyler; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 5.344