4.7 Article

Limb salvage with isolated perfusion for soft tissue sarcoma:: could less TNF-α be better?

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 7, Pages 1061-1068

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdi229

Keywords

isolated limb perfusion; soft tissue sarcoma; TNF-alpha

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The optimal dose of TNF-alpha delivered by isolated limb perfusion (ILP) in patients with locally advanced soft tissue sarcoma is still unknown. Patients and methods: Randomised phase II trial comparing hyperthermic ILP (38-40 degrees) with melphalan and one of the four assigned doses of TNF-alpha: 0.5 mg, 1 mg, 2 mg, and 3/4 mg upper/lower limb. The main end point was objective tumour response on MRI. Secondary end points were histological response, rate of amputation and toxicity. Resection of the remnant tumour was performed 2-3 months after ILP. The sample size was calculated assuming a linear increase of 10% in the objective response rates between each dose level group. Results: One hundred patients (25 per arm) were included. Thirteen per cent of patients had a systemic leakage with a cardiac toxicity in six patients correlated with high doses of TNF-alpha. Objective tumour responses were: 68%, 56%, 72% and 64% in the 0.5 mg, 1 mg, 2 mg and 3 or 4 mg arms, respectively (NS). Sixteen per cent of patients were not operated, 71% had a conservative surgery and 13% were amputated with no difference between the groups. With a median follow-up of 24 months, the 2 year overall and disease-free survival rates (95% Cl) were 82% (73% to 89%) and 49% (39% to 59%), respectively. Conclusion: At the range of TNF-alpha doses tested, there was no dose effect detected for the objective tumour response, but systemic toxicity was significantly correlated with higher TNF-alpha doses. Efficacy and safety of low-dose TNF-alpha could greatly facilitate ILP procedures in the near future.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available