ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Isolated Limb Infusion as First, Second, or Third or Later-Line Therapy for Metastatic In-Transit Melanoma.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Evolving Role of Intralesional Therapy in In-Transit Melanoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Isolated Limb Infusion or Perfusion as First-Line Versus Second-Line Therapy for In-Transit Metastatic Melanoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTen percent of patients with melanoma develop in-transit metastases (ITM). Isolated limb infusion (ILI) is a well-established therapy for unresectable ITM on the extremities, but the ideal sequencing/line of therapy of ILI has not been defined. This study evaluates ILI as first-line, second-line, or third or later-line therapy.
methodsA retrospective review included all patients with unresectable ITM who underwent ILI from 2006-2023.
resultsA total of 130 patients were identified, 61% female, median age of 71 (31-89) years. Median follow-up was 37.5 months. ILI was first-line therapy in 80% (n = 104), second-line in 15% (n = 19), and third or later-line in 5.4% (n = 7). Overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates for ILI as any line of therapy were 74% and 41%, respectively. ORR for ILI as first, second, or third or later-line therapy were 78%, 63%, and 57%, respectively. CR rates for ILI as first, second, or third or later-line therapy were 42%, 37%, and 43%, respectively. There were no significant differences in ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, or disease-free survival between therapy lines. Median PFS for ILI as first, second, or third or later-line therapy were 6.9, 5.4, and 18 months, respectively.
conclusionPatients responded well to ILI, whether or not they received previous therapies for unresectable ITM. First-line ILI appears to have a better ORR than later lines of ILI. Although sample size limited statistical significance, there was a 21% improvement in ORR when ILI was used as first-line vs third-line therapy, which is clinically meaningful. ILI is effective for unresectable melanoma ITM and can be used as salvage therapy.
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.