Search

Objective: To investigate overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of first-line isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) compared to best alternative care (BAC) for patients with uveal melanoma liver metastases., Summary Background Data: Approximately half of patients with uveal melanoma develop metastatic disease, most commonly in the liver and systemic treatment options are limited. Isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) is a locoregional therapy with high response rates but with unclear effect on overall survival (OS)., Methods: In this phase III randomized controlled multicenter trial (the SCANDIUM trial) patients with previously untreated isolated uveal melanoma liver metastases were included between 2013-2021, with at least 24 months of follow-up. The planned accrual was 90 patients randomized 1:1 to receive a one-time treatment with IHP or BAC. Crossover to IHP was not allowed. The primary endpoint was the 24-month OS rate, with the hypothesis of a treatment effect leading to a 50% OS rate in the IHP group compared to 20% in the control group. HRQOL was measured by the EuroQol 5-domains 3-levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire over 12 months., Results: The intention-to-treat (ITT) population included 87 patients randomized to the IHP group (43 patients; 41 [89%] received IHP) or the control group (44 patients). The control group received chemotherapy (49%), immunotherapy (39%), or localized interventions (9%). In the ITT population, the median PFS was 7.4 months in the IHP group compared with 3.3 months in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.12-0.36). The 24-month OS rate was 46.5% in the IHP group versus 29.5% in the control group (P=0.12). The median OS was 21.7 months versus 17.6 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.37-1.10). EQ-5D-3L showed a sustained high health status for the IHP group over 12 months, compared to a deteriorating trend in the control group., Conclusions: For patients with liver metastases from uveal melanoma, IHP offers high response rates translating to a benefit in PFS including a trend of better HRQOL compared to the control group. However, the primary endpoint of OS at 24 months was not met., Competing Interests: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: ROB has received institutional research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) and SkyLineDx, speaker honoraria from Roche and Pfizer, and has served on advisory boards for Amgen, BD/BARD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Roche and Sanofi Genzyme, and is a shareholder in SATMEG Ventures AB. LN has received institutional research grants from Merck and Syndax Pharmaceuticals, speaker honoraria from BMS, Johnson&Johnson, Leo Pharma, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, and Zealth, and is a shareholder in SATMEG Ventures AB. HH has received speaker honoraria from BMS, MSD, and Pierre Fabre and has served on advisory boards for MSD and Novartis. ILJ has served on advisory boards for MSD and BMS. JN is a shareholder in SATMEG Ventures AB. GU has during the past two years received honoraria for teaching activities by BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis and for consulting/advising by Incyte, BMS, Novartis, MSD, Alligator Bioscience, LIDDS, and SeqCure Immunology AB and is a stock owner in ESSITY and Oncopeptides. PL has served on advisory boards for Pierre Fabre, (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Purpose: About half of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma present with isolated liver metastasis, in whom the median survival is 6-12 months. The few systemic treatment options available only moderately prolong survival. Isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) with melphalan is a regional treatment option, but prospective efficacy and safety data are lacking., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial, patients with previously untreated isolated liver metastases from uveal melanoma were randomly assigned to receive a one-time treatment with IHP with melphalan or best alternative care (control group). The primary end point was overall survival at 24 months. Here, we report the secondary outcomes of response according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, progression-free survival (PFS), hepatic PFS (hPFS), and safety., Results: Ninety-three patients were randomly assigned, and 87 patients were assigned to either IHP (n = 43) or a control group receiving the investigator's choice of treatment (n = 44). In the control group, 49% received chemotherapy, 39% immune checkpoint inhibitors, and 9% locoregional treatment other than IHP. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the overall response rates (ORRs) were 40% versus 4.5% in the IHP and control groups, respectively ( P < .0001). The median PFS was 7.4 months versus 3.3 months ( P < .0001), with a hazard ratio of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.36), and the median hPFS was 9.1 months versus 3.3 months ( P < .0001), both favoring the IHP arm. There were 11 treatment-related serious adverse events in the IHP group compared with seven in the control group. There was one treatment-related death in the IHP group., Conclusion: IHP treatment resulted in superior ORR, hPFS, and PFS compared with best alternative care in previously untreated patients with isolated liver metastases from primary uveal melanoma.

Background: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma waiting for liver transplantation are commonly treated with locoregional treatments, such as TACE and ablation, to prevent tumor progression and dropout and to improve long-term outcome after transplantation. We wanted to prospectively assess feasibility of systemic antitumor treatment with sorafenib as neoadjuvant treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma while waiting for liver transplantation, evaluating tolerability, toxicity and posttransplant morbidity. We also wanted to evaluate perfusion CT parameters to assess tumor properties and response early after start of sorafenib treatment in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma., Methods: Twelve patients assigned for liver transplantation due to hepatocellular carcinoma, within the UCSF and who fulfilled other criteria, were included January 2012-August 2014. After baseline evaluation, sorafenib treatment was started. Treatment was evaluated by perfusion CT at 1, 4 and 12 weeks and thereafter every 8 weeks. Toxicity and quality of life was assessed at 1 and 4 weeks and every 4 weeks thereafter during treatment. Treatment was stopped when patients were prioritized on the transplantation waiting list or when intolerable side effects or tumor progress warranted other treatments. Posttransplant morbidity after 90 days was registered according to Clavien-Dindo., Results: Baseline perfusion CT parameters in the tumors predicted the outcome according to RECIST/mRECIST at three months, but no change in CTp parameters was detected as a result of sorafenib. Sorafenib as neoadjuvant treatment was associated with intolerability and dose reductions. Therefore the prerequisites for evaluation of the sorafenib effect on both CT parameters and tumor response were impaired., Conclusions: This study failed to show changes in CTp parameters during sorafenib treatment. Despite the curative treatment intention, tolerability of neoadjuvant sorafenib treatment before liver transplantation was inadequate in this study., Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2010-024306-36 (date 2011-04-07).

Objective: To evaluate existing evidence regarding surgical treatments for gallbladder cancer in a Health Technology Assessment. A specific aim was to evaluate whether extended surgery regarding liver, lymph nodes, bile duct, and adjacent organs compared with cholecystectomy alone in the adult patient with gallbladder cancer in early and late stages implies improved survival., Methods: In April 2015 and updated in June 2016, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. The certainty of evidence was evaluated according to GRADE., Main Results: Forty-four observational studies (non-randomised, controlled studies) and seven case series were included. Radical resection, including liver and lymph node resection, compared with cholecystectomy alone showed significantly better survival for patients with stages T1b and above. All studies had serious study limitations and the certainty of evidence was very low (GRADE ⊕○○○). A survival benefit seen in patients with stage T1b or higher with lymph node resection, was most evident in stage T2, but the certainty of evidence was low (GRADE ⊕⊕○○). It is uncertain whether routine bile duct resections improve overall survival in patients with gallbladder cancer stage T2-T4 (GRADE ⊕○○○)., Conclusion: Data indicate that prognosis can be improved if liver resection and lymph node resection is performed in patients with tumour stage T1b or higher. There is no evidence supporting resection of the bile duct or adjacent organs if it is not necessary in order to achieve radicality.