Advertisement

Long–Term Oncologic Outcomes After Isolated Limb Infusion for Locoregionally Metastatic Melanoma: An International Multicenter Analysis

  • John T. Miura
  • Hidde M. Kroon
  • Georgia M. Beasley
  • Dean Mullen
  • Norma E. Farrow
  • Paul J. Mosca
  • Michael C. Lowe
  • Clara R. Farley
  • Youngchul Kim
  • Syeda Mahrukh Hussnain Naqvi
  • Aishwarya Potdar
  • Hala Daou
  • James Sun
  • 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. ZagerEmail author
Melanoma

Abstract

Background

Isolated limb infusion (ILI) is a minimally invasive procedure for delivering high-dose regional chemotherapy to patients with locally advanced or in-transit melanoma located on a limb. The current international multicenter study evaluated the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes for patients who underwent ILI for stage 3B or 3C melanoma.

Methods

Patients undergoing a first-time ILI for stage 3B or 3C melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] 7th ed) between 1992 and 2018 at five Australian and four United States of America (USA) tertiary referral centers were identified. The primary outcome measures included treatment response, in-field (IPFS) and distant progression-free survival (DPFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 687 first-time ILIs were performed (stage 3B: n = 383, 56%; stage 3C; n = 304, 44%). Significant limb toxicity (Wieberdink grade 4) developed in 27 patients (3.9%). No amputations (grade 5) were performed. The overall response rate was 64.1% (complete response [CR], 28.9%; partial response [PR], 35.2%). Stable disease (SD) occurred in 14.5% and progressive disease (PD) in 19.8% of the patients. The median follow-up period was 47 months, with a median OS of 38.2 months. When stratified by response, the patients with a CR or PR had a significantly longer median IPFS (21.9 vs 3.0 months; p < 0.0001), DPFS (53.6 vs 12.7 months; p < 0.0001), and OS (46.5 vs 24.4 months; p < 0.0001) than the nonresponders (SD + PD).

Conclusion

This study is the largest to date reporting long-term outcomes of ILI for locoregionally metastatic melanoma. The findings demonstrate that ILI is effective and safe for patients with stage 3B or 3C melanoma confined to a limb. A favorable response to ILI is associated with significantly longer IFPS, DPFS, and OS.

Notes

Disclosure

There are no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose related to the subject matter in the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson JF, Lai DT, Ingvar C, et al. Maximizing efficacy and minimizing toxicity in isolated limb perfusion for melanoma. Melanoma Res. 1994;4(Suppl 1):45–50.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kroon HM, Coventry BJ, Giles MH, et al. Safety and efficacy of isolated limb infusion chemotherapy for advanced locoregional melanoma in elderly patients: an Australian multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mian R, Henderson MA, Speakman D, et al. Isolated limb infusion for melanoma: a simple alternative to isolated limb perfusion. Can J Surg. 2001;44:189–92.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindner P, Doubrovsky A, Kam PC, et al. Prognostic factors after isolated limb infusion with cytotoxic agents for melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kroon HM, Moncrieff M, Kam PC, et al. Outcomes following isolated limb infusion for melanoma: a 14-year experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:3003–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Donoghue C, Perez MC, Mullinax JE, et al. Isolated limb infusion: a single-center experience with over 200 infusions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3842–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beasley GM, Caudle A, Petersen RP, et al. A multi-institutional experience of isolated limb infusion: defining response and toxicity in the US. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:706–15; discussion 715–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kroon HM, Coventry BJ, Giles MH, et al. Australian multicenter study of isolated limb infusion for melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:1096–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coventry BJ, Kroon HM, Giles MH, et al. Australian multicenter experience outside of the Sydney Melanoma Unit of isolated limb infusion chemotherapy for melanoma. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:780–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Postow MA, Chesney J, Pavlick AC, et al. Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2006–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:320–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2521–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weitman ES, Zager JS. Regional therapies for locoregionally advanced and unresectable melanoma. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2018;35:495−502.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miura JT, Zager JS. Intralesional therapy as a treatment for locoregionally metastatic melanoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2018;18:399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luu C, Khushalani NI, Zager JS. Intralesional and systemic immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2016;16:1491–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muilenburg DJ, Beasley GM, Thompson ZJ, et al. Burden of disease predicts response to isolated limb infusion with melphalan and actinomycin D in melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:482–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kroon HM, Huismans A, Waugh RC, et al. Isolated limb infusion: technical aspects. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:352–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beasley GM, Petersen RP, Yoo J, et al. Isolated limb infusion for in-transit malignant melanoma of the extremity: a well-tolerated but less effective alternative to hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wieberdink J, Benckhuysen C, Braat RP, et al. Dosimetry in isolation perfusion of the limbs by assessment of perfused tissue volume and grading of toxic tissue reactions. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1982;18:905–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hunter RD. World Health Organization (WHO) handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland, 1979.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chai CY, Deneve JL, Beasley GM, et al. A multi-institutional experience of repeat regional chemotherapy for recurrent melanoma of extremities. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:1637–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: melanoma. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Montgomery 2017.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andtbacka RH, Kaufman HL, Collichio F, et al. Talimogene laherparepvec improves durable response rate in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2780–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Long GV, Dummer R, Ribas A, et al. Efficacy analysis of MASTERKEY-265 phase 1b study of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab (pembro) for unresectable stage IIIB-IV melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(Suppl 15):9568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ariyan CE, Brady MS, Siegelbaum RH, et al. Robust antitumor responses result from local chemotherapy and CTLA-4 blockade. Cancer Immunol Res. 2018;6:189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kroon HM, Huismans AM, Kam PC, et al. Isolated limb infusion with melphalan and actinomycin D for melanoma: a systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:348–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • John T. Miura
    • 1
  • Hidde M. Kroon
    • 2
    • 3
  • Georgia M. Beasley
    • 4
  • Dean Mullen
    • 2
  • Norma E. Farrow
    • 4
  • Paul J. Mosca
    • 4
  • Michael C. Lowe
    • 5
  • Clara R. Farley
    • 5
  • Youngchul Kim
    • 1
  • Syeda Mahrukh Hussnain Naqvi
    • 1
  • Aishwarya Potdar
    • 1
  • Hala Daou
    • 1
  • James Sun
    • 1
  • Jeffrey M. Farma
    • 6
  • Michael A. Henderson
    • 7
  • David Speakman
    • 7
  • Jonathan Serpell
    • 8
  • Keith A. Delman
    • 5
  • B. Mark Smithers
    • 9
  • Brendon J. Coventry
    • 2
  • Douglas S. Tyler
    • 10
  • John F. Thompson
    • 3
    • 11
    • 12
  • Jonathan S. Zager
    • 1
    • 13
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Cutaneous OncologyMoffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Royal Adelaide HospitalUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Melanoma Institute AustraliaThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Winship Cancer InstituteEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  6. 6.Department of Surgical OncologyFox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  7. 7.Division of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  8. 8.Discipline of Surgery, The Alfred HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  9. 9.Queensland Melanoma Project, Princess Alexandra HospitalUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  10. 10.Department of SurgeryUniversity Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA
  11. 11.Department of Melanoma and Surgical OncologyRoyal Prince Alfred HospitalSydneyAustralia
  12. 12.Discipline of SurgeryThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  13. 13.University of South Florida Morsani School of MedicineTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations