BACKGROUND: Isolated limb infusion (ILI) is a limb-preserving treatment for in-transit extremity melanoma. The benefit of resecting residual disease after ILI is unclear. METHODS: A multi-institutional experience was analyzed comparing patients who underwent ILI plus resection of residual disease (ILI + RES) versus ILI-alone. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were included, 154 with ILI-alone and 22 with ILI + RES. There were no differences between the groups with respect to gender, age, extremity affected, or time from diagnosis to ILI. All surgical resections were performed as an outpatient procedure, separate from the ILI. Within the ILI + RES group, 15 (68%) had a partial response (PR), 2 (9%) stable disease (SD), and 5 (23%) progressive disease (PD). The ILI-alone group had 52 (34%) CR, 30 (19%) PR, 15 (10%) SD, and 46 (30%) PD. Eleven (7%) ILI-alone patients did not have 3-month response available for review. Evaluating overall survival (OS) from date of ILI, the ILI-alone group had a median OS of 30.9 months, whereas the ILI + RES group had not reached median OS, p = 0.304. Although the ILI + RES group had a slightly longer disease-free survival (DFS) compared to those with a CR after ILI-alone (12.4 vs. 9.6), this was not statistically significant, p = 0.978. Within the ILI + RES group, those with an initial PR after ILI had improved DFS versus those with SD or PD after ILI, p < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Resection of residual disease after ILI offers a DFS and OS similar to those who have a CR after ILI-alone. It may offer a treatment strategy that benefits patients undergoing ILI.
BACKGROUND: Isolated limb infusion (ILI) is a limb-preserving treatment for in-transit extremity melanoma. The benefit of resecting residual disease after ILI is unclear. METHODS: A multi-institutional experience was analyzed comparing patients who underwent ILI plus resection of residual disease (ILI + RES) versus ILI-alone. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were included, 154 with ILI-alone and 22 with ILI + RES. There were no differences between the groups with respect to gender, age, extremity affected, or time from diagnosis to ILI. All surgical resections were performed as an outpatient procedure, separate from the ILI. Within the ILI + RES group, 15 (68%) had a partial response (PR), 2 (9%) stable disease (SD), and 5 (23%) progressive disease (PD). The ILI-alone group had 52 (34%) CR, 30 (19%) PR, 15 (10%) SD, and 46 (30%) PD. Eleven (7%) ILI-alone patients did not have 3-month response available for review. Evaluating overall survival (OS) from date of ILI, the ILI-alone group had a median OS of 30.9 months, whereas the ILI + RES group had not reached median OS, p = 0.304. Although the ILI + RES group had a slightly longer disease-free survival (DFS) compared to those with a CR after ILI-alone (12.4 vs. 9.6), this was not statistically significant, p = 0.978. Within the ILI + RES group, those with an initial PR after ILI had improved DFS versus those with SD or PD after ILI, p < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Resection of residual disease after ILI offers a DFS and OS similar to those who have a CR after ILI-alone. It may offer a treatment strategy that benefits patients undergoing ILI.
Authors: Georgia M Beasley; Ketan Sharma; Joyce Wong; Mike Miller; Ryan S Turley; Michael Lidsky; Melanie Masoud; Mark W Dewhirst; Paul J Mosca; Jonathan S Zager; Douglas S Tyler Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: H Richard Alexander; Douglas L Fraker; David L Bartlett; Steven K Libutti; Seth M Steinberg; Perry Soriano; Tatiana Beresnev Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew P Barbour; Janine Thomas; Jennifer Suffolk; Elaine Beller; B Mark Smithers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Georgia M Beasley; Abigail Caudle; Rebecca P Petersen; Nicole S McMahon; James Padussis; Paul J Mosca; Jonathan S Zager; Steven N Hochwald; Stephen R Grobmyer; Keith A Delman; Robert H Andtbacka; R Dirk Noyes; John M Kane; Hilliard Seigler; Scott K Pruitt; Merrick I Ross; Douglas S Tyler Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Charles M Balch; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Seng-Jaw Soong; John F Thompson; Michael B Atkins; David R Byrd; Antonio C Buzaid; Alistair J Cochran; Daniel G Coit; Shouluan Ding; Alexander M Eggermont; Keith T Flaherty; Phyllis A Gimotty; John M Kirkwood; Kelly M McMasters; Martin C Mihm; Donald L Morton; Merrick I Ross; Arthur J Sober; Vernon K Sondak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alfredo A Santillan; Keith A Delman; Georgia M Beasley; Paul J Mosca; Steven N Hochwald; Stephen R Grobmyer; Robert H Andtbacka; R Dirk Noyes; John M Kane; Merrick I Ross; Douglas S Tyler; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-06-19 Impact factor: 5.344
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