4.6 Article

TNF-based isolated limb perfusion in unresectable extremity desmoid tumours

期刊

EJSO
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 912-916

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2005.07.002

关键词

soft tissue sarcoma; aggressive fibromatosis; TNF; melphalan; isolated limb perfusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Desmoid tumours are soft tissue sarcomas with locat aggressive behaviour and a high rate of local recurrence after treatment. Although they do not tend to metastasise systemically, the local aggressiveness can lead to situations in which limb-preserving surgery cannot be performed without severe disability. As isolated limb perfusion (ILP) with TNF and melphalan has proven to be extremely effective in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma, we studied its potential in locally advanced extremity desmoid tumours. Methods: Prospectively maintained database in a tertiary referral centre. Between 1991 and 2003, 12 ILP procedures were performed in 11 patients for locally advanced desmoid tumours. Local surgical therapy with preservation of limb function was impossible in all. patients due to large or multifocal. tumours, multiple recurrences or extensive previous treatment. Perfusions were performed with 4-3 mg TNF and 1013 mg/l limb volume melphalan form leg and arm perfusions, respectively. Results: Overall response rate was 75%: Two complete responses were recorded (17%) and seven patients had a partial response (58%). Amputation could be avoided in all cases. Local control was obtained after 10/12 ILPs and in the other two patients through repeat ILP and systemic chemotherapy, thus leading to an overall local. control rate of 100%. Local toxicity was mild and systemic toxicity was absent in all patients. Conclusion: ILP is a very effective treatment option in the multimodality treatment of limb desmoid tumours. It should be considered in patients with aggressive and disabling disease where resection without important functional sacrifice is impossible. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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