ArticlePloS one2022
Prospective evaluation of percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan as a treatment for unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally Invasive Treatment Options for Hepatic Uveal Melanoma Metastases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePercutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (M-PHP) is increasingly used in patients with liver metastases from various primary tumors, yet data on colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are limited. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of M-PHP in patients with CRLM. MATERIALS AND
methodsProspective, single-center, single-arm phase II study of M-PHP with hemofiltration in patients with unresectable CRLM. Proven, extrahepatic metastatic disease was one of the exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR) and best overall response (BOR). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), hepatic PFS (hPFS), and safety.
resultsA total of 14 M-PHP procedures were performed in eight patients between March 2014 and December 2015. All patients (median age 56 years, ranging from 46 to 68) had received (extensive) systemic chemotherapy before entering the study. The ORR was 25.0%, with two out of eight patients showing partial response as BOR. Median OS was 17.3 months (ranging from 2.6 to 30.9) with a one-year OS of 50.0%. Median PFS and hPFS were 4.4 and 4.5 months, respectively. No serious adverse events occurred. Grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events were observed in the majority of patients, though all were transient and well-manageable.
conclusionM-PHP is a safe procedure with only limited efficacy in patients with unresectable CRLM who already showed progression of disease after receiving one or more systemic treatment regimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.