OBJECTIVES: Regional therapy for metastatic melanoma to the liver represents an alternative to systemic therapy. Hepatic progression-free survival (HPFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with liver metastases from cutaneous or uveal melanoma treated with yttrium-90 (Y90), chemoembolization (CE), or percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty patients (6 Y90, 10 PHP, 12 CE, 1 PHP then Y90, 1 CE then PHP) were included. Multivariate analysis showed improved HPFS for PHP versus Y90 (P=0.004), PHP versus CE (P=0.02) but not for CE versus Y90. PFS was also significantly different: Y90 (54 d), CE (52 d), PHP (245 d), P=0.03. PHP treatment and lower tumor burden were significant predictors of prolonged PFS on multivariate analysis. Median OS from time of treatment was longest, but not significant, for PHP at 608 days versus Y90 (295 d) and CE (265 d), P=0.24. Only PHP treatment versus Y90 and lower tumor burden had improved OS on multivariate analysis (P=0.03, 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: HPFS and PFS were significantly prolonged in patients treated with PHP versus CE or Y90. Median OS in PHP patients was over double that seen in Y90 or CE patients but was significant only between PHP and Y90.
OBJECTIVES: Regional therapy for metastatic melanoma to the liver represents an alternative to systemic therapy. Hepatic progression-free survival (HPFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with liver metastases from cutaneous or uveal melanoma treated with yttrium-90 (Y90), chemoembolization (CE), or percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty patients (6 Y90, 10 PHP, 12 CE, 1 PHP then Y90, 1 CE then PHP) were included. Multivariate analysis showed improved HPFS for PHP versus Y90 (P=0.004), PHP versus CE (P=0.02) but not for CE versus Y90. PFS was also significantly different: Y90 (54 d), CE (52 d), PHP (245 d), P=0.03. PHP treatment and lower tumor burden were significant predictors of prolonged PFS on multivariate analysis. Median OS from time of treatment was longest, but not significant, for PHP at 608 days versus Y90 (295 d) and CE (265 d), P=0.24. Only PHP treatment versus Y90 and lower tumor burden had improved OS on multivariate analysis (P=0.03, 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: HPFS and PFS were significantly prolonged in patients treated with PHP versus CE or Y90. Median OS in PHP patients was over double that seen in Y90 or CE patients but was significant only between PHP and Y90.
Authors: Khairuddin Memon; Timothy M Kuzel; Michael Vouche; Rohi Atassi; Robert J Lewandowski; Riad Salem Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Judy Ahrar; Sanjay Gupta; Joe Ensor; Kamran Ahrar; David C Madoff; Michael J Wallace; Ravi Murthy; Alda Tam; Patrick Hwu; Agop Y Bedikian Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Kashyap Patel; Kevin Sullivan; David Berd; Michael J Mastrangelo; Carol L Shields; Jerry A Shields; Takami Sato Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Karun V Sharma; Jennifer E Gould; J William Harbour; Gerald P Linette; Thomas K Pilgram; Pouya N Dayani; Daniel B Brown Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andrew S Kennedy; Charles Nutting; Tobias Jakobs; Roberto Cianni; Ermanno Notarianni; Amos Ofer; Alex Beny; William A Dezarn Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: P Mariani; S Piperno-Neumann; V Servois; M G Berry; T Dorval; C Plancher; J Couturier; C Levy-Gabriel; L Lumbroso-Le Rouic; L Desjardins; R J Salmon Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-03-28 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: R Olofsson; C Cahlin; C All-Ericsson; F Hashimi; J Mattsson; M Rizell; P Lindnér Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-10-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Meghan R Forster; Omar M Rashid; Matthew C Perez; Junsung Choi; Tariq Chaudhry; Jonathan S Zager Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Colin Yee; David McCoy; Jay Yu; Aaron Losey; Caroline Jordan; Terilyn Moore; Carol Stillson; Hee Jeung Oh; Bridget Kilbride; Shuvo Roy; Anand Patel; Mark W Wilson; Steven W Hetts Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2019-09-27
Authors: Steffen Marquardt; Martha M Kirstein; Roland Brüning; Martin Zeile; Pier Francesco Ferrucci; Warner Prevoo; Boris Radeleff; Hervé Trillaud; Lambros Tselikas; Emilio Vicente; Philipp Wiggermann; Michael P Manns; Arndt Vogel; Frank K Wacker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ioannis Karydis; Alexandra Gangi; Matthew J Wheater; Junsung Choi; Iain Wilson; Kerry Thomas; Neil Pearce; Arjun Takhar; Sanjay Gupta; Danielle Hardman; Sean Sileno; Brian Stedman; Jonathan S Zager; Christian Ottensmeier Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: C L A Dewald; L S Becker; S K Maschke; T C Meine; T A Alten; M M Kirstein; A Vogel; F K Wacker; B C Meyer; J B Hinrichs Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Cornelia L A Dewald; Mia-Maria Warnke; Roland Brüning; Martin A Schneider; Peter Wohlmuth; Jan B Hinrichs; Anna Saborowski; Arndt Vogel; Frank K Wacker Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-27 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Tushar Garg; Apurva Shrigiriwar; Peiman Habibollahi; Mircea Cristescu; Robert P Liddell; Julius Chapiro; Peter Inglis; Juan C Camacho; Nariman Nezami Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-07-10 Impact factor: 6.575