4.4 Article

Long-term follow-up of 163 consecutive patients treated with isolated limb perfusion for in-transit metastases of malignant melanoma

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYPERTHERMIA
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 551-557

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2013.802374

关键词

In-transit metastases; isolated limb perfusion; malignant melanoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of the present study is to describe our experience with isolated limb perfusion (ILP) in the treatment of in-transit metastases of malignant melanoma and to determine prognostic factors for response, local progression, survival and toxicity. Materials and methods: A retrospective follow-up of all patients (n = 163) treated between January 1984 and December 2008 using data collected from individual patient records and the Swedish National Patient Register. Results: Clinical response was evaluable in 155 patients, 65% had a complete response (CR) and 20% had a partial response (PR). Local progression occurred in 63% of the patients after a median time of 16 months. Negative prognostic factors in univariate analyses were proximal location of the primary tumour, > 10 in-transit metastases and if there was no CR after ILP. In multivariate analysis, proximal location of the primary tumour and no CR after ILP were significant prognostic factors. Median cancer-specific survival was 30 months, and negative prognostic factors in univariate analyses were male gender, positive lymph node status, systemic metastases, bulky tumour, > 10 in-transit metastases and if there was no CR after ILP. In multivariate analysis, positive lymph node status, bulky tumour and no CR after ILP were significant prognostic factors. A majority (97%) of the patients had a Wieberdink grade II-III local toxicity. Four patients underwent limb amputation after a median of 19 months, none because of toxicity. Conclusion: We found that ILP is a safe method with a high response rate for the treatment of patients with in-transit metastases of malignant melanoma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据