Isolated limb perfusion for unresectable extremity sarcoma

26Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Backkground: Controversy has surrounded the role of isolated limb perfusion (ILP) for unresectable extremity sarcomas. However, there remains a group of sarcoma patients for whom amputation is the only potential treatment. Because systemic therapies are limited, the authors evaluated ILP in an effort to provide a limb-salvage option. Methods: Since 1995, patients with unresectable extremity sarcomas were entered in 2 prospective trials using ILP. Study 1 used tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and melphalan in the perfusion circuit at hyperthermic temperatures (39-41°C). Study 2 used doxorubicin at normothermic temperatures. All ILPs were performed using the standard, previously described technique. Results: Seventeen patients were entered into study 1; there were 10 (58%) partial responses, 1 (6%) near complete response (CR), 1 (6%) CR, and 5 (30%) no response/minor response. Fourteen patients died of their disease, with a median follow-up of 17 months. Seven (41%) patients maintained their limb intact until the time of death. Twelve patients were entered into study 2; there were no partial or CRs and 2 (20%) minor responses. With a median follow-up of 35 months, there are 3 patients alive (2 with their extremity intact and 1 with an amputation). Six patients developed myonecrosis with creatine phosphokinase levels up to 54,000 U/dL. Conclusions: Although doxorubicin is active systemically, TNF and melphalan appear to have greater activity and less toxicity during ILP. Future clinical trials are needed to clearly identify the role for ILP in patients with unresectable extremity sarcomas. © 2011 American Cancer Society.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wray, C. J., Benjamin, R. S., Hunt, K. K., Cormier, J. N., Ross, M. I., & Feig, B. W. (2011). Isolated limb perfusion for unresectable extremity sarcoma. Cancer, 117(14), 3235–3241. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25850

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free