Bartlett D L, Ma G, Alexander H R, Libutti S K, Fraker D L
Surgery Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Cancer. 1997 Dec 1;80(11):2084-90. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19971201)80:11<2084::aid-cncr7>3.0.co;2-x.
This retrospective study evaluated the benefit of using tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and melphalan administered via an isolated limb perfusion (ILP) in a series of patients with metastatic melanoma who failed initial ILP with chemotherapeutics.
Seventeen patients with extremity melanoma who underwent prior ILP with conventional chemotherapeutics (10 with melphalan; 4 with platinum; 2 with platinum, dacarbazine, thiotepa, actinomycin D, and nitrogen mustard; and 1 with thiotepa, actinomycin D, and nitrogen mustard) and had local recurrences were treated with a 90-minute isolated hyperthermic limb reperfusion with melphalan (10 mg/L limb volume) plus TNF (2-6 mg). Five prior ILPs were adjuvant and 12 were therapeutic.
Reperfusion was associated with an overall 94% response rate and a 65% complete response (CR) rate. Of the patients who failed an initial ILP with melphalan alone the overall response rate was 90% after the reperfusion with TNF and melphalan. In patients who failed an initial ILP with agents other than melphalan the CR rate was 100% after ILP with TNF and melphalan. TNF/melphalan isolated limb reperfusion was found to be more effective in terms of CR after initial ILP regimens that did not utilize melphalan (100% CR after nonmelphalan ILP vs. 50% CR after melphalan ILP [P = 0.04]). Regional toxicity was comprised of mild skin blistering and peeling in 47% of patients. One patient developed Grade 3 (based on National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria) skin necrosis, and one developed Grade 5 muscle and nerve toxicity, requiring an amputation.
Isolated limb reperfusion with TNF and melphalan can be performed safely with response rates similar to those of other trials of single perfusions. Repeat ILP using TNF and melphalan in patients with melanoma who have failed prior ILP with chemotherapeutics is justified. The utility of TNF (vs. melphalan alone) will be defined in ongoing Phase III trials.
这项回顾性研究评估了对一系列经初始化疗性隔离肢体灌注(ILP)治疗失败的转移性黑色素瘤患者,采用肿瘤坏死因子(TNF)和马法兰经隔离肢体灌注(ILP)治疗的益处。
17例肢体黑色素瘤患者,之前接受过常规化疗的ILP治疗(10例使用马法兰;4例使用铂类;2例使用铂类、达卡巴嗪、噻替派、放线菌素D和氮芥;1例使用噻替派、放线菌素D和氮芥)且出现局部复发,接受了90分钟的隔离肢体热灌注,灌注液含马法兰(10mg/L肢体容积)加TNF(2 - 6mg)。之前的5次ILP为辅助性,12次为治疗性。
再灌注的总体有效率为94%,完全缓解(CR)率为65%。在仅接受初始马法兰ILP治疗失败的患者中,TNF和马法兰再灌注后的总体有效率为90%。在接受除马法兰以外其他药物初始ILP治疗失败的患者中,TNF和马法兰ILP后的CR率为100%。发现TNF/马法兰隔离肢体再灌注在未使用马法兰的初始ILP方案后,就CR而言更有效(非马法兰ILP后CR率为100%,马法兰ILP后CR率为50%[P = 0.04])。区域毒性表现为47%的患者出现轻度皮肤水疱和脱皮。1例患者发生3级(根据美国国立癌症研究所通用毒性标准)皮肤坏死,1例发生5级肌肉和神经毒性,需要截肢。
TNF和马法兰隔离肢体再灌注可安全进行,有效率与其他单次灌注试验相似。对之前化疗性ILP治疗失败的黑色素瘤患者,采用TNF和马法兰重复ILP治疗是合理的。TNF(与单独使用马法兰相比)的效用将在正在进行的III期试验中确定。