
==== Front
Clin Exp Metastasis
Clin Exp Metastasis
Clinical & Experimental Metastasis
0262-0898
1573-7276
Springer Netherlands Dordrecht

37843790
10234
10.1007/s10585-023-10234-6
Review
Isolated hyperthermic perfusions for cutaneous melanoma in-transit metastasis of the limb and uveal melanoma metastasis to the liver
Huibers Anne 12
DePalo Danielle K. 3
Perez Matthew C. 3
Zager Jonathan S. 34
Olofsson Bagge Roger roger.olofsson.bagge@gu.se

12
1 https://ror.org/04vgqjj36 grid.1649.a 0000 0000 9445 082X Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden
2 https://ror.org/01tm6cn81 grid.8761.8 0000 0000 9919 9582 Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 413 90 Gothenburg, Sweden
3 https://ror.org/01xf75524 grid.468198.a 0000 0000 9891 5233 Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL USA
4 grid.170693.a 0000 0001 2353 285X Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida Morsani, College of Medicine, Tampa, FL USA
16 10 2023
16 10 2023
2024
41 4 447456
18 5 2023
18 9 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Patients with cutaneous melanoma can develop in-transit metastases (ITM), most often localized to limbs. For patients with uveal melanoma that develop metastatic disease, the overall majority develop isolated liver metastases. For these types of metastases, regional cancer therapies have evolved as effective treatments. Isolated limb perfusion (ILP), isolated limb infusion (ILI), isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) and percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) achieve a high local concentration of chemotherapy with minimal systemic exposure. This review discusses the mechanism and available literature on locoregional treatment modalities in the era of modern immunotherapy.

Keywords

In transit metastasis
Uveal melanoma
Isolated limb perfusion
Isolated limb infusion
Isolated hepatic perfusion
Percutaneous hepatic perfusion
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004334 Merck http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008272 Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Philogenhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100019871 Castle Biosciences PfizerSun PharmaIstariAmgenDelcath SystemsProvectusBristol-Myers Squibb (BMS)Endomagnetics Ltd (Endomag)SkyLineDxRochePierre-FabreBD/BARDMerck Sharp & Dohme (MSD)Roche and Sanofi GenzymeSATMEG Ventures ABUniversity of GothenburgOpen access funding provided by University of Gothenburg.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature B.V. 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The incidence of melanoma is rapidly increasing worldwide, and in the Western population one out of every 50 individuals will develop melanoma [1]. Melanoma is a cancer caused by malignant transformation of melanocytes, cells derived from the neural crest cells that migrate to several different sites in the body [2]. Therefore, melanoma may involve various parts of the body, such as the skin (cutaneous melanoma), mucosa (mucosal melanoma), and the eye (uveal melanoma). While most melanomas are detected at an early stage, a proportion of patients will have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis or develop metastasis at a later stage. The introduction of effective systemic therapies with targeted therapies and immunotherapy has revolutionized clinical management of patients with advanced melanoma, but these treatments can also cause serious side effects [3]. There are particular types of metastases that can develop. Patients with cutaneous melanoma can develop in-transit metastases (ITM), most often localized to limbs [4, 5]. In patients with uveal melanoma that develop metastatic disease, approximately 90% develop isolated liver metastases [6]. For these types of metastases, regional cancer therapies have evolved as effective treatments. Isolated limb perfusion (ILP), isolated limb infusion (ILI), isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP), and percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) achieve a high local concentration of chemotherapy with minimal systemic exposure [7–9]. In this review we give an overview of ILP/ILI for the treatment of ITM in patients with cutaneous melanoma and IHP/PHP for the treatment of liver metastasis in patients with uveal melanoma.

In-transit metastases

Approximately 5–10% of patients with high risk early-stage melanoma will develop ITM [4, 5]. ITM appear as tumor nodules in the subcutaneous or cutaneous tissues between the primary site and the nearest draining node basin. The metastasis can be of variable size and may or may not be pigmented [10]. The hypothesis is that ITM originates from tumor cell emboli entrapped in dermal lymphatic vessels between primary tumor location and regional lymph nodes [11]. However, ITM is a heterogenous disease and the exact mechanism behind its development is not completely understood. In a study by Jakub et al. clinical predictive factors for the development of ITM include age, lower limb localization, Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate and positive sentinel node [12]. In the same study, an analysis of 108 genes adjusted for age, Breslow, mitotic rate and localization identified five up-regulated and five down-regulated genes predictive of ITM recurrence, where CXCL1/8-CXCR1/2 pathways seemed most important, and integrin/growth factor receptor signaling was less important [12]. Interestingly, some patients with ITM progress rapidly with distant metastases, while others stay stable with regional disease for years. This heterogeneity makes an individual treatment approach necessary, aiming for both locoregional control and reducing the risk for distant recurrence. Surgical resection is usually recommended for patients with limited and resectable disease. For patients in which surgical treatment is not deemed feasible, regional therapies (including intralesional therapies, ILP/ILI, radiotherapy or topical therapy) or systemic therapies can be considered [7–9, 13].

Systemic treatments

Systemic treatment options for unresectable stage III disease are identical to those available to patients with stage IV melanoma. Targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors, or immune checkpoint blockade with a PD-1 antibody (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) as monotherapy, or PD-1 and CTLA-4 antibodies (nivolumab and ipilimumab) in combination, have been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced melanoma [14–18]. Interestingly, in the immunotherapy registration trials patients with unresectable stage III disease were included, however in a study analyzing these trials there were no patients with ITM identified, so no prospective randomized data on the efficacy of immunotherapy for ITM exists [19]. There have been suggestions that systemic therapies are less effective than locoregional therapies in patients with ITM, on the other hand, they can have the potential benefit that undetected distant micro-metastatic disease is being treated simultaneously. A few analyses have reported on the response rates of systemic therapies in ITM, and within these studies, a total of 474 patients were treated with anti-PD1, anti-CTLA4 or both in combination [20–23]. Overall response rates (ORR) varied from 31 to 62%, with complete response (CR) rates between 13 and 62%. There is even less data on response rates for patients treated with targeted therapy, Zaremba et al. reported on 19 patients with ITM treated with either BRAF inhibition (n = 9) or BRAF/MEK inhibition (n = 10). Results showed an ORR of 63% and CR rate of 26% [23]. Current clinical guidelines, such as those published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), suggest systemic therapy as well as regional therapies as treatment options for patients with ITM [24, 25].

Isolated limb perfusion

The technique of ILP was first described by Creech and Krementz in 1958 [26]. The treatment concept consists of surgical isolation of the extremity and the connection of the circulation to an extracorporeal heart–lung machine [Fig. 1]. This allows regional administration of heated chemotherapy at concentrations that would not be possible systemically [7]. To further minimize potential systemic side effects of the chemotherapy, continuous leakage monitoring and adjustment of flow rate are performed throughout the procedure. The most common chemotherapy agent for perfusion is melphalan, but when bulky disease is present, or in patients undergoing a repeat procedure, the addition of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) can be of additional value. However, TNF-alpha is available mainly in Europe and not in e.g., North America or Australia. The procedure has proved to be safe and effective, with a CR rate of approximately 60% and an ORR of 90% [27]. ILP can also safely be repeated, achieving similar high response rates and comparable toxicity as for first-time ILP procedures. Repeat ILP procedures is mainly indicated for patients who already showed a CR after the first ILP, in patients not responding other treatment options should be considered [PMID 30617871].Fig. 1 Isolated limb perfusion (ILP)

One study has examined the effect of BRAF-mutational status, but the response to ILP was similar independent of BRAF status [28]. The treatment is also suitable for elderly patients, and ILP can also be repeated safely for those with recurrent disease [28–30]. However, there exist no studies showing that ILP reduces the risk of distant metastasis, suggesting that ILP primarily should be seen as a locoregional treatment [31, 32]. Two recent papers assessed whether outcomes after ILP were influenced by previous immunotherapy [33, 34]. Davies et al., published a retrospectively analysis of 97 patients that had undergone ILP, out of which 16 had received prior immunotherapy. In the study of Holmberg et al., 218 patients were included, of which 20 had received and failed prior immunotherapy. In the later study, there was no reduced effect of ILP when comparing the two cohorts (50% vs 46%). Whereas Davies et al. showed a significant difference in complete response rate after ILP, in favor of those that were immunotherapy-naïve (6% vs 47%, p = 0.0018). There was no significant difference between age, sex distribution and positive lymph node disease at presentation between the groups. A possible explanation for these contrasting findings may be a difference in referral policies between institutions.

Currently, we lack international treatment algorithms on how to treat extensive in transit metastasis. Surgical resection, when feasible, continues to represent a standard approach for patients with localized low disease burden. Patients with more extensive disease benefit from ILP with high response rates, and ILP is probably also a valid treatment option with high response rates in patients that have previously failed systemic immunotherapy.

Isolated limb infusion

In 1996, Thompson et al. described the novel technique of isolated limb infusion (ILI), a technically simpler alternative to ILP. Vascular access is gained by placing arterial and venous catheters by interventional radiology via the contralateral groin [Fig. 2]. The correct placement of the catheters is confirmed by fluoroscopy. The patient is systemically heparinized prior to tourniquet occlusion. Melphalan and dactinomycin are typically used, which are dosed according to limb volume corrected for ideal body weight to limit toxicity. The chemotherapy is infused manually via a syringe during 20–30 min [35–38]. A large multi-center report of long-term efficacy of ILI showed an impressive ORR of 64% and a CR of 29%, with the complete responders after ILI having more than 6 years median OS after ILI [39]. Other single and multi-institutional studies show efficacy and safety also in elderly, showing an ORR of nearly 70% after ILI in patients older than 80 years [40] (see Table 1).Fig. 2 Isolated limb infusion (ILI)

Table 1 Comparison of technique and outcome of ILP and ILI [41–45]

	Isolated limb perfusion (ILP)	Isolated limb infusion (ILI)	
Technique	Open surgical exposure of vessels	Percutaneous catheterization	
	Duration approximately 3 h	Duration approximately 1.5 h	
	Perfusion approx. 60 min	Infusion approx. 20–30 min	
	Heart–lung machine needed	No need for heart–lung machine	
	No fluoroscopy needed	Fluoroscopy needed	
	General anesthesia	Possible with regional anesthesia	
	TNF-alpha	No TNF-alpha	
	Leakage monitoring recommended	No leakage monitoring	
	Repeatable	Repeatable	
Outcomes			
 Wieberdink grade IV toxicity	3–4%	0–1%	
 Overall response rate	80–81%	43–53%	
 Complete response rate	55–57%	24–50%	
 Median overall survival	33–40 months	32–46 months	

No randomized comparisons between ILI and ILP have been reported, but there appear to be differences in both outcome and complication rates, whether these differences are significant is yet to be assessed. Overall response rates for ILP and ILI have ranged from 40 to 90%, a higher ORR is reported for ILP in most of the literature [31, 41–43]. In a large, retrospective review of 225 patients undergoing ILP or ILI, ILP had a higher ORR (81 vs. 43%, p < 0.001) with a similar regional toxicity between the treatments, with the exception that ILP was more likely to be associated with the rare complication of limb loss (3 vs. 0%) [41]. A limitation of this comparison is that it included a high selection bias between the procedures, not stratifying for burden of disease which is known to correlate with outcomes after regional treatments [44]. In a study comparing two large-volume, single-institution series of ILP and ILI including 203 patients with ITM, adjusting for known predictive factors, ILP offered higher overall (80% vs. 53%) and complete response rates (60% vs. 29%), but this did not translate into any prolonged overall survival [45]. Importantly, in this more modern series there was no major difference in toxicity, and no patient developed the complication of limb loss.

Taken together, ILP seems to have higher response rates but also potentially higher toxicity. Few centers offer both ILP and ILI, and taking into consideration that both techniques require special knowledge and a multi-disciplinary team, the treatment to recommend is likely the treatment that the center is used to perform. Both procedures can be repeated multiple times with similar response rates, where ILP might be more technically challenging but where some institutions have the possibility to also add TNF-alpha, potentially increasing the response rates even further.

Combinatorial treatments

During ILP, the isolated limb is only treated with melphalan for 60 min; however, in patients with a complete or partial response, it usually takes several months before metastases disappear completely, implying that the cytotoxic effect is not solely responsible for the observed tumor regression. A potential explanation would be that the response is at least partially immune-mediated. Although there is limited translational data, recent studies support the potential link between ILP-induced cellular immunity and the clinical benefit of ILP. ILP triggers an increase of activated T cells in peripheral blood, and CR rates following ILP are associated with the presence of activated CD8 + T cells prior to ILP [46–48]. In a murine model of melanoma, the combination of chemotherapy and CTLA-4 blockade induced a cellular shift in the local tumor microenvironment, with infiltrating CD8 + and CD4 + T cells increasing the CD8 + /Foxp3 T-cell ratio and leading to an improved survival [49]. In a phase II trial including 26 patients with advanced melanoma treated by ILI with melphalan and the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab, the ORR was 85%, including 62% CR [49]There is also preclinical evidence that PD-1 inhibition could potentially increase the efficacy of ILP, and these findings further support the rationale behind ongoing studies, evaluating the combination of regional therapy and immunotherapy [50]. Two examples of ongoing studies are the Nivo-ILP trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: CT03685890) and NIVEC (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04330430), which are recruiting patients with in-transit metastasis, examining the combination of ILP and nivolumab, and T-VEC and nivolumab, respectively. Another phase I/II trial, the TITAN trial, is evaluating the safety of using T-VEC in combination chemotherapy administered via ILP (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03555032).

Uveal melanoma

Clinical background

Uveal melanoma derives from melanocytes located in the choroid (90%), ciliary body (6%) and iris (4%), which are all structures of the uveal tract [51]. In terms of pathogenesis, incidence, clinical presentation, and response to treatment, the behavior is very different compared to cutaneous melanoma. While ultraviolet (UV) light radiation is an established risk factor for the development of cutaneous melanoma, wavelengths of the UV radiation cannot penetrate and reach the posterior eye where the choroid is located [52]. Ultraviolet light is therefore not implicated in the pathogenesis, with the exception of iris melanomas, which arise from a region of the eye exposed to UV light [53]. The incidence trend of uveal melanoma has different from cutaneous melanoma, where the incidence over the past decades has remained stable, ranging from 4.9 to 10.9 per million [54, 55]. At the time of diagnosis, the majority of patients present with symptoms (87%) ranging from various visual disturbances to visual loss, whereas asymptomatic patients are usually diagnosed during a routine eye examination [56]. Historically, the treatment of uveal melanoma has usually consisted of enucleation, which is still an appropriate treatment in the presence of a large tumor. However, there has been a shift towards eye-preserving modalities, based on the results of the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) where no survival benefit was showed in patients treated with enucleation compared to brachytherapy [57]. This technique is now accepted as treatment for small and medium sized tumors, with a 5-year local recurrence rate of less than 5% [58].

Distant metastasis

Despite the relatively good response of the primary lesion, patients with uveal melanoma have a poor prognosis; distant metastasis develop in 25–31% within 5 years, 34–45% within 15 years, and 49% within 25 years of diagnosis [6, 59]. The liver is the most common site of metastasis (93%), but some patients could have additional metastases including the lungs (24%), bones (16%) and soft tissues (11%) [60]. Once the disease has metastasized, the median OS is less than one year, with only 8% of patients surviving at two years [61]. Several clinical, histological, and molecular factors are associated with the risk of developing stage IV disease. The American Joint Committee on Cancer classification system for uveal melanoma is based on clinical features, in which a larger tumor size, ciliary body involvement, and extraocular extension are associated with a higher risk of metastasis. Besides clinical features, advances in the understanding of molecular mechanisms underlying uveal melanoma have enhanced prognostication. Currently, the most clinically significant genetic alterations are mutations in the genes encoding the BRCA-1 associated protein 1 (BAP-1). These mutations are found in 47% of primary uveal melanoma and 84% of metastatic patients, and there is an association between BAP1 mutation and a poor prognosis [62].

The reason why uveal melanoma metastasize primarily to the liver is far from understood. In contrast to conjunctival melanoma, uveal melanomas are known to metastasize hematogenous, and a common explanation is the lack of lymphatics within the eye. Regional lymphatic metastases are exceptionally rare and are associated with extraocular extension or orbital recurrences where the tumors have the possibility to invade into the lymphatic system. However, new findings have questioned the lack of lymphatic drainage from the eye, whether this affects the metastatic route is still unknown [63]. An early observation by Zimmerman et al. in patients with uveal melanoma was that there was a peak in mortality 2 to 3 years after primary diagnosis and enucleation, and one hypothesis was that the surgery itself released tumor cells causing this effect. This was one of the reasons why the COMS-trial of enucleation compared to brachytherapy was initiated [64]. An alternative hypothesis was that uveal melanoma cause early micro-metastatic disease, and by calculating the doubling times of both the primary tumor and the metastases, Eskelin et al. created a mathematical model showing that if a primary tumor would cause metastases, that would have been initiated approximately 3 years before diagnosis, and it would take an additional 2 years for the liver metastases to become clinically detectable [65]. Indeed, micro-metastatic disease have been identified in patients, and two different growth patterns have been proposed. In the first pattern the sinusoidal space is included (infiltrative growth pattern), and in the second the growth is located in the periportal area (nodular growth pattern) [66]. Murine models have shown that modification of immunogenic factors, with e.g., the activation of natural killer (NK) cells by interferon alpha 2b, decreases micro-metastasis in the liver [67]. Also, non-immunogenic factors are of importance, e.g., where pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) have been shown to prevent progression of liver metastasis [68]. A novel and interesting concept is the role of primary tumor derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) and their ability to create pre-metastatic niches within the liver. E.g., EVs from colorectal cancer induce transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) mediated epithelial to mesenchymal transition of hepatocytes [69]. Proteomic analysis of EVs from uveal melanoma cell lines have identified several proteins associated with organotropic metastasis to the liver, including TGF-β [70]. Another study isolated EVs from different uveal melanoma cell lines, these EVs were then used to treat fibroblasts and the results showed increased proliferation, migration, invasion and a general acquisition of malignant characteristics [71].

Systemic treatments

Although multiple systemic treatments have shown efficacy in cutaneous melanoma, the results in patients with uveal melanoma are disappointing. While most evidence comes from single arm studies, some randomized trials have been performed [72–78]. For chemotherapy, most studies have used dacarbazine, temozolamide, or fotemustine, all with limited efficacy as single-agent treatments, with ORRs ranging between 0 and 10% [73, 75, 76]. Evidence from preclinical studies suggests that targeting MEK has efficacy against uveal melanoma cells in vitro, which has led to three randomized controlled trials evaluating the MEK inhibitor selumetinib, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy [73, 74, 76, 79]. Although two of the trials showed a significant improvement in PFS, there was no improvement in OS [73, 76].

The tumor mutational burden in uveal melanoma is lower compared to cutaneous melanoma, which may explain its low sensitivity to checkpoint inhibition [80]. Efforts have been made to enhance the efficacy of single-agent immunotherapeutics, for example, by adding epigenetic therapy using the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat to upregulate the expression of immune signaling components in melanoma cells. In the PEMDAC trial, this agent was combined with pembrolizumab and showed a median PFS of 2.1 months and a median OS of 13.4 months [81]. Two single-armed trials examined the combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibition (ipilimumab and nivolumab) with a median OS of 12.7 and 19.1 months, respectively [82, 83].

The first treatment to show a prolonged OS in a phase III randomized trial was tebentafusp, a bispecific antibody consisting of an affinity-enhanced T-cell receptor fused to an anti-CD3 effector, which redirects T cells to target glycoprotein 100–positive cells. The trial randomized patients to receive either tebentafusp or investigator’s choice treatment with single-agent pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine [72]. In this trial, including a total of 378 patients, treatment with tebentafusp resulted in significantly longer OS (21.7 vs 16.0 months). Interestingly, the benefit in PFS or tumor response was low with a median PFS 3.3 months in the tebentafusp group vs. 2.9 months in the control group [72]. This implies a clinically important effect on outcome for patients, even without a radiographically significant decrease in tumor size.

Loco-regional treatments

Using the same rationale as for isolated limb perfusion, isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) is a treatment modality that exposes liver metastases to a high local concentration of melphalan with minimal systemic toxicity. IHP was originally designed as an experimental model in canines and later Ausman et al. developed the technique in a porcine model [26, 84]. In 1960, the outcome of the first five patients treated with IHP using nitrogen mustard for 60 min was reported [85]. Since then, IHP has been clinically evaluated in several studies, mainly for liver metastases derived from colorectal cancer, melanoma, and neuroendocrine tumors, but also for primary hepatic malignancies [86]. IHP is a major and complex surgical intervention. Since the first report by Ausman et al., there have been many developments in surgical technique that have decreased morbidity and improved response rates. One of the differences between studies has been whether to shunt the portal vein, include it in the perfusion, or to clamp it.

The only randomized controlled phase III trial investigating IHP, the SCANDIUM trial, included 93 patients with previously untreated isolated liver metastases from uveal melanoma. The patients were randomized to receive a one-time treatment with IHP with melphalan or best alternative care (control group). In the control group, 49% of the patients received chemotherapy, 39% immune checkpoint inhibitors, and 9% other locoregional treatments. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the ORR was 40% compared to 4.5% favoring IHP, and this also translated to a benefit in median PFS (7.4 vs. 3.3 months) [87].

In the early 1990s, three independent groups developed a novel percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) system using extracorporeal chemofiltration. The technique combined a conventional hepatic artery infusion with a dual-balloon vena cava catheter collecting the outflow from the liver. The venous outflow was then connected to an extracorporeal venous bypass circuit, including a carbon filter, to recover any of the drug that was not absorbed by the liver [88, 89]. A phase I dose escalation study using melphalan including 28 patients, showed an ORR of 30%, and in ten patients with melanoma, the response rate was 50% [90]. This finding lead to the initiation of a phase III study, randomizing 93 patients to either PHP or best alternative care (BAC). The median PFS was 5.4 months for PHP compared to 1.6 months in the control group; however, there was no difference in median OS (10.6 months vs. 10.0 months), potentially due to a high rate of crossover from the control group to the PHP group [91].

A recent phase III study, the FOCUS trial, compared PHP to the investigator’s choice of transarterial chemoembolization, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, or dacarbazine in patients with hepatic-dominant disease. The trial started as a randomized trial where 43 patients were randomized to PHP and 42 to the control arm, but due to enrollment concerns the control arm was stopped and another 59 patients was assigned to the PHP arm. The ORR was 35% in patients receiving PHP compared 12.5% in the control, which translated to significantly prolonged PFS (9.0 vs. 3.1 months) [92]. Both the SCANDIUM and the FOCUS trial show similar response rates and prolongation in PFS, further supported by data from a recent meta-analysis, where the hepatic PFS was 10.0 vs. 9.5 months and the OS 17.1 vs. 17.3 months when comparing IHP and PHP for patients with uveal melanoma liver metastases. However, there was a higher complication rate (39.1% vs. 23.8%) and a higher 30-day mortality (5.5% vs. 1.8%) for patients treated with IHP compared to PHP [9]. An interesting development is the combination of IHP or PHP with systemic immunotherapy, and ongoing studies are currently investigating the combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors with either PHP (CHOPIN trial ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04283890) or IHP (SCANDIUM-II trial ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04463368).

Biomarkers for response

For patients with ITM undergoing ILP or ILI, there is yet no established molecular biomarkers that predicts response. An interesting research field is immunological factors associated with response, and early data have suggested that patients achieving a CR after ILP had higher counts of CD3+CD8+CD45RA+ T cells as well as activated CD3+HLA-DR+ T cells before treatment [48]. For patients with uveal melanoma liver metastases undergoing treatment with IHP/PHP, there are similarly no established molecular biomarkers. Data has shown a correlation between OS and a high infiltration of CD8 + T cells in metastases, and an activated immune cell profile in peripheral blood, in patients treated with IHP [47]. Research is ongoing using RNA and DNA sequencing trying to identify patterns of response and progression after IHP [78].

Conclusion

For patients with cutaneous melanoma ITM or liver metastasis from uveal melanoma, isolated hyperthermic perfusion is an effective treatment modality with high response rates. There is also emerging evidence that combinatorial treatments with modern immunotherapy might enhance efficacy further. For patients with melanoma in-transit metastases, where only approximately 30% achieve a complete response after modern immunotherapy, there is definitely a future for regional treatments, either by intralesional therapies or ILP/ILI. For patients with uveal melanoma liver metastases, IHP/PHP achieves high response rates with marked PFS benefits, but in order to substantially improve overall survival the addition of systemic treatments will be of the highest importance.

Author contributions

AH and ROB made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work and the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work. AH, ROB contributed to the drafting of the work and AH, ROB, DKD, MCP, and JSZ contributed to the critical revision for important intellectual content. AH, ROB, DKD, MCP, and JSZ provided final approval of the version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg. Merck, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Philogen, Castle Biosciences, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Istari, Amgen, Delcath Systems, Provectus, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Endomagnetics Ltd (Endomag), SkyLineDx, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, BD/BARD, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche and Sanofi Genzyme, SATMEG Ventures AB.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

A.H., D.K.D. and M.C.P. declare no conflicts of interest. J.S.Z has advisory board relationships and has received fees from with Merck, Novartis, Philogen, Castle Biosciences, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma. He also received research funding from Istari, Amgen, Delcath Systems, Philogen, Provectus and Novartis. He serves on the medical advisory board for Delcath Systems. R.O.B. has received institutional research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Endomagnetics Ltd (Endomag) and SkyLineDx, speaker honorarium from Roche, Pfizer and Pierre-Fabre, 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.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Arnold M Global Burden of Cutaneous Melanoma in 2020 and Projections to 2040 JAMA Dermatol 2022 158 5 495 503 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0160 35353115
Arnold M et al (2022) Global Burden of Cutaneous Melanoma in 2020 and Projections to 2040. JAMA Dermatol 158(5):495–503. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.016035353115 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0160
2. López F Update on primary head and neck mucosal melanoma Head Neck 2016 38 1 147 155 10.1002/hed.23872 25242350
López F et al (2016) Update on primary head and neck mucosal melanoma. Head Neck 38(1):147–155. 10.1002/hed.2387225242350 10.1002/hed.23872
3. Blank CU Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma Nat Med 2018 24 11 1655 1661 10.1038/s41591-018-0198-0 30297911
Blank CU et al (2018) Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma. Nat Med 24(11):1655–1661. 10.1038/s41591-018-0198-030297911 10.1038/s41591-018-0198-0
4. Pawlik TM Predictors and natural history of in-transit melanoma after sentinel lymphadenectomy Ann Surg Oncol 2005 12 8 587 596 10.1245/ASO.2005.05.025 16021533
Pawlik TM et al (2005) Predictors and natural history of in-transit melanoma after sentinel lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 12(8):587–596. 10.1245/ASO.2005.05.02516021533 10.1245/ASO.2005.05.025
5. Read RL In-transit melanoma metastases: incidence, prognosis, and the role of lymphadenectomy Ann Surg Oncol 2015 22 2 475 481 10.1245/s10434-014-4100-0 25256128
Read RL et al (2015) In-transit melanoma metastases: incidence, prognosis, and the role of lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 22(2):475–481. 10.1245/s10434-014-4100-025256128 10.1245/s10434-014-4100-0
6. Diener-West M Screening for metastasis from choroidal melanoma: the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group Report 23 J Clin Oncol 2004 22 12 2438 2444 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.194 15197206
Diener-West M et al (2004) Screening for metastasis from choroidal melanoma: the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group Report 23. J Clin Oncol 22(12):2438–2444. 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.19415197206 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.194
7. Olofsson R Mattsson J Lindnér P Long-term follow-up of 163 consecutive patients treated with isolated limb perfusion for in-transit metastases of malignant melanoma Int J Hyperth 2013 29 6 551 557 10.3109/02656736.2013.802374
Olofsson R, Mattsson J, Lindnér P (2013) Long-term follow-up of 163 consecutive patients treated with isolated limb perfusion for in-transit metastases of malignant melanoma. Int J Hyperth 29(6):551–557. 10.3109/02656736.2013.80237410.3109/02656736.2013.802374
8. Olofsson Bagge R Minimally invasive isolated limb perfusion–technical details and initial outcome of a new treatment method for limb malignancies Int J Hyperth 2018 35 1 667 673 10.1080/02656736.2018.1522000
Olofsson Bagge R et al (2018) Minimally invasive isolated limb perfusion–technical details and initial outcome of a new treatment method for limb malignancies. Int J Hyperth 35(1):667–673. 10.1080/02656736.2018.152200010.1080/02656736.2018.1522000
9. Bethlehem MS Katsarelias D Bagge RO Meta-analysis of isolated hepatic perfusion and percutaneous hepatic perfusion as a treatment for uveal melanoma liver metastases Cancers 2021 10.3390/cancers13184726 34638493
Bethlehem MS, Katsarelias D, Bagge RO (2021) Meta-analysis of isolated hepatic perfusion and percutaneous hepatic perfusion as a treatment for uveal melanoma liver metastases. Cancers. 10.3390/cancers1318472634638493 10.3390/cancers13184726
10. Gershenwald JE Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual CA Cancer J Clin 2017 67 6 472 492 10.3322/caac.21409 29028110
Gershenwald JE et al (2017) Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 67(6):472–492. 10.3322/caac.2140929028110 10.3322/caac.21409
11. Borgstein PJ Meijer S Van Diest PJ Are locoregional cutaneous metastases in melanoma predictable? Ann Surg Oncol 1999 10.1007/s10434-999-0315-x 10340893
Borgstein PJ, Meijer S, Van Diest PJ (1999) Are locoregional cutaneous metastases in melanoma predictable? Ann Surg Oncol. 10.1007/s10434-999-0315-x10340893 10.1007/s10434-999-0315-x
12. Jakub JW Weaver AL Meves A Association of tumor molecular factors with in-transit metastasis in primary cutaneous melanoma Int J Dermatol 2022 61 9 1117 1123 10.1111/ijd.16141 35246838
Jakub JW, Weaver AL, Meves A (2022) Association of tumor molecular factors with in-transit metastasis in primary cutaneous melanoma. Int J Dermatol 61(9):1117–1123. 10.1111/ijd.1614135246838 10.1111/ijd.16141
13. Andtbacka RHI Final analyses of OPTiM: A randomized phase III trial of talimogene laherparepvec versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in unresectable stage III-IV melanoma J Immunother Cancer 2019 10.1186/s40425-019-0623-z 31171039
Andtbacka RHI et al (2019) Final analyses of OPTiM: A randomized phase III trial of talimogene laherparepvec versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in unresectable stage III-IV melanoma. J Immunother Cancer. 10.1186/s40425-019-0623-z31171039 10.1186/s40425-019-0623-z
14. M. Liu et al (2017) Efficacy and safety of BRAF inhibition alone versus combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. www.impactjournals.com/oncotarget
15. Long et al (2015) Comparison of dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy with vemurafenib monotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous BRAF Val600-mutation-positive melanoma (COMBI-v): results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial. www.thelancet.com/oncology
16. Hodi FS Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2018 19 11 1480 1492 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30700-9 30361170
Hodi FS et al (2018) Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 19(11):1480–1492. 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30700-930361170 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30700-9
17. Robert C Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study Lancet Oncol 2019 20 9 1239 1251 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30388-2 31345627
Robert C et al (2019) Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 20(9):1239–1251. 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30388-231345627 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30388-2
18. Larkin J Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma N Engl J Med 2019 381 16 1535 1546 10.1056/nejmoa1910836 31562797
Larkin J et al (2019) Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 381(16):1535–1546. 10.1056/nejmoa191083631562797 10.1056/nejmoa1910836
19. R. Olofsson Bagge et al (2021) The efficacy of immunotherapy for in-transit metastases of melanoma: An analysis of randomized controlled trials. Melanoma Res. 10.1097/CMR.0000000000000719.
20. Holmberg CJ The efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade for melanoma in-transit with or without nodal metastases—a multicenter cohort study Eur J Cancer 2022 169 210 222 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.041 35644725
Holmberg CJ et al (2022) The efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade for melanoma in-transit with or without nodal metastases—a multicenter cohort study. Eur J Cancer 169:210–222. 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.04135644725 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.041
21. Storey L Checkpoint inhibitor treatment in patients with isolated in-transit melanoma metastases J Clin Oncol 2020 38 15 10070 10070 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.10070
Storey L (2020) Checkpoint inhibitor treatment in patients with isolated in-transit melanoma metastases. J Clin Oncol 38(15):10070–1007010.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.10070
22. Nan Tie E Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors for in-transit melanoma J Immunother Cancer 2020 10.1136/jitc-2019-000440 32376722
Nan Tie E et al (2020) Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors for in-transit melanoma. J Immunother Cancer. 10.1136/jitc-2019-00044032376722 10.1136/jitc-2019-000440
23. Zaremba A Clinical characteristics and therapy response in unresectable melanoma patients stage IIIB-IIID with in-transit and satellite metastases Eur J Cancer 2021 152 139 154 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.04.032 34102453
Zaremba A et al (2021) Clinical characteristics and therapy response in unresectable melanoma patients stage IIIB-IIID with in-transit and satellite metastases. Eur J Cancer 152:139–154. 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.04.03234102453 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.04.032
24. Seth R Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline J Clin Oncol 2020 38 3947 3970 10.1200/JCO.20 32228358
Seth R et al (2020) Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol 38:3947–3970. 10.1200/JCO.2032228358 10.1200/JCO.20
25. Michielin O Van Akkooi ACJ Ascierto PA Dummer R Keilholz U Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann Oncol 2019 30 12 1884 1901 10.1093/annonc/mdz411 31566661
Michielin O, Van Akkooi ACJ, Ascierto PA, Dummer R, Keilholz U (2019) Cutaneous melanoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 30(12):1884–1901. 10.1093/annonc/mdz41131566661 10.1093/annonc/mdz411
26. Creech O Krementz ET Ryan RF Winblad JN Chemotherapy of cancer: * regional perfusion utilizing an extracorporeal circuit Ann Surg 1958 148 4 616 10.1097/00000658-195810000-00009 13583933
Creech O, Krementz ET, Ryan RF, Winblad JN (1958) Chemotherapy of cancer: regional perfusion utilizing an extracorporeal circuit. Ann Surg 148(4):61613583933 10.1097/00000658-195810000-00009
27. Moreno-Ramirez D Cruz-Merino L Ferrandiz L Villegas-Portero R Nieto-Garcia A Isolated limb perfusion for malignant melanoma: systematic review on effectiveness and safety Oncologist 2010 15 4 416 427 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0325 20348274
Moreno-Ramirez D, Cruz-Merino L, Ferrandiz L, Villegas-Portero R, Nieto-Garcia A (2010) Isolated limb perfusion for malignant melanoma: systematic review on effectiveness and safety. Oncologist 15(4):416–427. 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-032520348274 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0325
28. Belgrano V Mattsson J Nilsson J Olofsson Bagge R Katsarelias D BRAF status as a predictive factor for response in isolated limb perfusion Int J Hyperther 2019 36 1 511 515 10.1080/02656736.2019.1601778
Belgrano V, Mattsson J, Nilsson J, Olofsson Bagge R, Katsarelias D (2019) BRAF status as a predictive factor for response in isolated limb perfusion. Int J Hyperther 36(1):511–515. 10.1080/02656736.2019.160177810.1080/02656736.2019.1601778
29. Madu MF Deken MM van der Hage JA Jóźwiak K Wouters MWJM van Akkooi ACJ Isolated limb perfusion for melanoma is safe and effective in elderly patients Ann Surg Oncol 2017 24 7 1997 2005 10.1245/s10434-017-5803-9 28188500
Madu MF, Deken MM, van der Hage JA, Jóźwiak K, Wouters MWJM, van Akkooi ACJ (2017) Isolated limb perfusion for melanoma is safe and effective in elderly patients. Ann Surg Oncol 24(7):1997–2005. 10.1245/s10434-017-5803-928188500 10.1245/s10434-017-5803-9
30. Deroose JP Grünhagen DJ Eggermont AMM Verhoef C Repeated isolated limb perfusion in melanoma patients with recurrent in-transit metastases Melanoma Res 2015 25 5 427 431 10.1097/CMR.0000000000000177 26110555
Deroose JP, Grünhagen DJ, Eggermont AMM, Verhoef C (2015) Repeated isolated limb perfusion in melanoma patients with recurrent in-transit metastases. Melanoma Res 25(5):427–431. 10.1097/CMR.000000000000017726110555 10.1097/CMR.0000000000000177
31. Olofsson Bagge R Mattsson J Hafström L Regional hyperthermic perfusion with melphalan after surgery for recurrent malignant melanoma of the extremities–long-term follow-up of a randomised trial Int J Hyperth 2014 30 5 295 298 10.3109/02656736.2014.931601
Olofsson Bagge R, Mattsson J, Hafström L (2014) Regional hyperthermic perfusion with melphalan after surgery for recurrent malignant melanoma of the extremities–long-term follow-up of a randomised trial. Int J Hyperth 30(5):295–298. 10.3109/02656736.2014.93160110.3109/02656736.2014.931601
32. Koops HS Prophylactic isolated limb perfusion for localized, high-risk limb melanoma: results of a multicenter randomized phase III trial. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Malignant Melanoma Cooperative Group Protocol 18832, the World Health Organization Melanoma Program Trial 15, and the North American Perfusion Group Southwest Oncology Group-8593 J Clin Oncol 1998 16 9 2906 2912 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.9.2906 9738557
Koops HS et al (1998) Prophylactic isolated limb perfusion for localized, high-risk limb melanoma: results of a multicenter randomized phase III trial. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Malignant Melanoma Cooperative Group Protocol 18832, the World Health Organization Melanoma Program Trial 15, and the North American Perfusion Group Southwest Oncology Group-8593. J Clin Oncol 16(9):2906–2912. 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.9.29069738557 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.9.2906
33. Davies EJ Reijers SJM Van Akkooi ACJ Van Houdt WJ Hayes AJ Isolated limb perfusion for locally advanced melanoma in the immunotherapy era Eur J Surg Oncol 2022 48 6 1288 1292 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.01.027 35153102
Davies EJ, Reijers SJM, Van Akkooi ACJ, Van Houdt WJ, Hayes AJ (2022) Isolated limb perfusion for locally advanced melanoma in the immunotherapy era. Eur J Surg Oncol 48(6):1288–1292. 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.01.02735153102 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.01.027
34. Holmberg CJ Mattsson J Olofsson Bagge R Effects of the introduction of modern immunotherapy on the outcome of isolated limb perfusion for melanoma in-transit metastases Cancers (Basel) 2023 10.3390/cancers15020472 36672422
Holmberg CJ, Mattsson J, Olofsson Bagge R (2023) Effects of the introduction of modern immunotherapy on the outcome of isolated limb perfusion for melanoma in-transit metastases. Cancers (Basel). 10.3390/cancers1502047236672422 10.3390/cancers15020472
35. Santillan AA Predictive factors of regional toxicity and serum creatine phosphokinase levels after isolated limb infusion for melanoma: a multi-institutional analysis Ann Surg Oncol 2009 16 9 2570 2578 10.1245/s10434-009-0563-9 19543771
Santillan AA et al (2009) Predictive factors of regional toxicity and serum creatine phosphokinase levels after isolated limb infusion for melanoma: a multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 16(9):2570–2578. 10.1245/s10434-009-0563-919543771 10.1245/s10434-009-0563-9
36. Kenyon-Smith TJ Factors predicting toxicity and response following isolated limb infusion for melanoma: an international multi-centre study Eur J Surg Oncol 2020 46 11 2140 2146 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.040 32739218
Kenyon-Smith TJ et al (2020) Factors predicting toxicity and response following isolated limb infusion for melanoma: an international multi-centre study. Eur J Surg Oncol 46(11):2140–2146. 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.04032739218 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.06.040
37. Thompson JF Kam PC Waugh RC Harman CR Isolated limb infusion with cytotoxic agents: a simple alternative to isolated limb perfusion Semin Surg Oncol 1998 14 3 238 247 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2388(199804/05)14:3<238::AID-SSU8>3.0.CO;2-9 9548607
Thompson JF, Kam PC, Waugh RC, Harman CR (1998) Isolated limb infusion with cytotoxic agents: a simple alternative to isolated limb perfusion. Semin Surg Oncol 14(3):238–2479548607 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2388(199804/05)14:3<238::AID-SSU8>3.0.CO;2-9
38. Carr MJ Sun J Zager JS Isolated limb infusion: institutional protocol and implementation J Surg Oncol 2020 122 1 99 105 10.1002/jso.25886 32162353
Carr MJ, Sun J, Zager JS (2020) Isolated limb infusion: institutional protocol and implementation. J Surg Oncol 122(1):99–105. 10.1002/jso.2588632162353 10.1002/jso.25886
39. Miura JT Long-term oncologic outcomes after isolated limb infusion for locoregionally metastatic melanoma: an international multicenter analysis Ann Surg Oncol 2019 26 8 2486 2494 10.1245/s10434-019-07288-w 30911949
Miura JT et al (2019) Long-term oncologic outcomes after isolated limb infusion for locoregionally metastatic melanoma: an international multicenter analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 26(8):2486–2494. 10.1245/s10434-019-07288-w30911949 10.1245/s10434-019-07288-w
40. Teras J International multicenter experience of isolated limb infusion for in-transit melanoma metastases in octogenarian and nonagenarian patients Ann Surg Oncol 2020 27 5 1420 1429 10.1245/s10434-020-08312-0 32152775
Teras J et al (2020) International multicenter experience of isolated limb infusion for in-transit melanoma metastases in octogenarian and nonagenarian patients. Ann Surg Oncol 27(5):1420–1429. 10.1245/s10434-020-08312-032152775 10.1245/s10434-020-08312-0
41. Raymond AK Current trends in regional therapy for melanoma: lessons learned from 225 regional chemotherapy treatments between 1995 and 2010 at a single institution J Am Coll Surg 2011 213 2 306 316 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.03.013 21493111
Raymond AK et al (2011) Current trends in regional therapy for melanoma: lessons learned from 225 regional chemotherapy treatments between 1995 and 2010 at a single institution. J Am Coll Surg 213(2):306–316. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.03.01321493111 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.03.013
42. Beasley GM Isolated limb infusion for in-transit malignant melanoma of the extremity: a well-tolerated but less effective alternative to hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion Ann Surg Oncol 2008 15 8 2195 2205 10.1245/s10434-008-9988-9 18528730
Beasley GM et al (2008) Isolated limb infusion for in-transit malignant melanoma of the extremity: a well-tolerated but less effective alternative to hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion. Ann Surg Oncol 15(8):2195–2205. 10.1245/s10434-008-9988-918528730 10.1245/s10434-008-9988-9
43. Kroon HM Lin D-Y Kam PCA Thompson JF Safety and efficacy of isolated limb infusion with cytotoxic drugs in elderly patients with advanced locoregional melanoma Ann Surg 2009 249 6 1008 1013 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a77ce5 19474677
Kroon HM, Lin D-Y, Kam PCA, Thompson JF (2009) Safety and efficacy of isolated limb infusion with cytotoxic drugs in elderly patients with advanced locoregional melanoma. Ann Surg 249(6):1008–1013. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a77ce519474677 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a77ce5
44. Muilenburg DJ Beasley GM Thompson ZJ Lee J-H Tyler DS Zager JS Burden of disease predicts response to isolated limb infusion with melphalan and actinomycin D in melanoma Ann Surg Oncol 2015 22 2 482 488 10.1245/s10434-014-4072-0 25192683
Muilenburg DJ, Beasley GM, Thompson ZJ, Lee J-H, Tyler DS, Zager JS (2015) Burden of disease predicts response to isolated limb infusion with melphalan and actinomycin D in melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 22(2):482–488. 10.1245/s10434-014-4072-025192683 10.1245/s10434-014-4072-0
45. Dossett LA Ben-Shabat I Olofsson Bagge R Zager JS Clinical response and regional toxicity following isolated limb infusion compared with isolated limb perfusion for in-transit melanoma Ann Surg Oncol 2016 23 7 2330 2335 10.1245/s10434-016-5150-2 26926481
Dossett LA, Ben-Shabat I, Olofsson Bagge R, Zager JS (2016) Clinical response and regional toxicity following isolated limb infusion compared with isolated limb perfusion for in-transit melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol 23(7):2330–2335. 10.1245/s10434-016-5150-226926481 10.1245/s10434-016-5150-2
46. Johansson J Isolated limb perfusion with melphalan triggers immune activation in melanoma patients Front Oncol 2018 10.3389/fonc.2018.00570 30662871
Johansson J et al (2018) Isolated limb perfusion with melphalan triggers immune activation in melanoma patients. Front Oncol. 10.3389/fonc.2018.0057030662871 10.3389/fonc.2018.00570
47. Johansson J Isolated limb perfusion with melphalan activates interferon-stimulated genes to induce tumor regression in patients with melanoma in-transit metastasis Oncoimmunology 2020 10.1080/2162402X.2019.1684126 33344043
Johansson J et al (2020) Isolated limb perfusion with melphalan activates interferon-stimulated genes to induce tumor regression in patients with melanoma in-transit metastasis. Oncoimmunology. 10.1080/2162402X.2019.168412633344043 10.1080/2162402X.2019.1684126
48. Martner A Johansson J Ben-Shabat I Bagge RO Melphalan, antimelanoma immunity, and inflammation-letterr Cancer Res 2015 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1184 26627012
Martner A, Johansson J, Ben-Shabat I, Bagge RO (2015) Melphalan, antimelanoma immunity, and inflammation-letterr. Cancer Res. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-118426627012 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1184
49. Ariyan CE Robust antitumor responses result from local chemotherapy and CTLA-4 blockade Cancer Immunol Res 2018 6 2 189 200 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-17-0356 29339377
Ariyan CE et al (2018) Robust antitumor responses result from local chemotherapy and CTLA-4 blockade. Cancer Immunol Res 6(2):189–200. 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-17-035629339377 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-17-0356
50. Kiffin R Johansson J Olofsson Bagge R Martner A Anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade improves the efficacy of a melphalan-based therapy in experimental melanoma Eur J Surg Oncol 2021 47 9 2460 2464 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.04.038 33980416
Kiffin R, Johansson J, Olofsson Bagge R, Martner A (2021) Anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade improves the efficacy of a melphalan-based therapy in experimental melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 47(9):2460–2464. 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.04.03833980416 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.04.038
51. Krantz BA Dave N Komatsubara KM Marr BP Carvajal RD Uveal melanoma: epidemiology, etiology, and treatment of primary disease Clin Ophthalmol 2017 10.2147/OPTH.S89591 28203054
Krantz BA, Dave N, Komatsubara KM, Marr BP, Carvajal RD (2017) Uveal melanoma: epidemiology, etiology, and treatment of primary disease. Clin Ophthalmol. 10.2147/OPTH.S8959128203054 10.2147/OPTH.S89591
52. Logan P Bernabeu M Ferreira A Burnier MN Evidence for the role of blue light in the development of uveal melanoma J Ophthalmol 2015 10.1155/2015/386986 26075084
Logan P, Bernabeu M, Ferreira A, Burnier MN (2015) Evidence for the role of blue light in the development of uveal melanoma. J Ophthalmol. 10.1155/2015/38698626075084 10.1155/2015/386986
53. Karlsson J Molecular profiling of driver events in metastatic uveal melanoma Nat Commun 2020 10.1038/s41467-020-15606-0 33116133
Karlsson J et al (2020) Molecular profiling of driver events in metastatic uveal melanoma. Nat Commun. 10.1038/s41467-020-15606-033116133 10.1038/s41467-020-15606-0
54. Bergman L Seregard S Nilsson B Ringborg U Lundell G Ragnarsson-Olding B Incidence of uveal melanoma in Sweden from 1960 to 1998 Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002 43 8 2579 2583 12147588
Bergman L, Seregard S, Nilsson B, Ringborg U, Lundell G, Ragnarsson-Olding B (2002) Incidence of uveal melanoma in Sweden from 1960 to 1998. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43(8):2579–258312147588
55. Singh AD Turell ME Topham AK Uveal melanoma: trends in incidence, treatment, and survival Ophthalmology 2011 118 9 1881 1885 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.040 21704381
Singh AD, Turell ME, Topham AK (2011) Uveal melanoma: trends in incidence, treatment, and survival. Ophthalmology 118(9):1881–1885. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.04021704381 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.040
56. Barker CA Kozlova A Shoushtari AN Hay JL Francis JH Abramson DH Quality of life concerns in patients with uveal melanoma after initial diagnosis Ocul Oncol Pathol 2020 6 3 184 195 10.1159/000502549 32509764
Barker CA, Kozlova A, Shoushtari AN, Hay JL, Francis JH, Abramson DH (2020) Quality of life concerns in patients with uveal melanoma after initial diagnosis. Ocul Oncol Pathol 6(3):184–195. 10.1159/00050254932509764 10.1159/000502549
57. Beck RW The COMS randomized trial of iodine 125 brachytherapy for Choroidal Melanoma V. twelve-year mortality rates and prognostic factors: COMS report No 28 Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) Group* Arch Ophthalmol 2006 124 12 1684 1693 10.1001/archopht.124.12.1684 17159027
Beck RW (2006) The COMS randomized trial of iodine 125 brachytherapy for Choroidal Melanoma V. twelve-year mortality rates and prognostic factors: COMS report No 28 Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) Group*. Arch Ophthalmol 124(12):1684–169317159027 10.1001/archopht.124.12.1684
58. Beck RW On Behalf of the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group Development of metastatic disease after enrollment in the COMS trials for Treatment of Choroidal Melanoma Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group Report No 26 Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group* Arch Ophthalmol 2005 123 1639 1643 10.1001/archopht.123.12.1639 16344433
Beck RW, On Behalf of the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group (2005) Development of metastatic disease after enrollment in the COMS trials for Treatment of Choroidal Melanoma Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group Report No 26 Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group*. Arch Ophthalmol 123:1639–164316344433 10.1001/archopht.123.12.1639
59. Kujala E Mäkitie T Kivelä T Very long-term prognosis of patients with malignant uveal melanoma Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003 44 11 4651 4659 10.1167/iovs.03-0538 14578381
Kujala E, Mäkitie T, Kivelä T (2003) Very long-term prognosis of patients with malignant uveal melanoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44(11):4651–4659. 10.1167/iovs.03-053814578381 10.1167/iovs.03-0538
60. Wilson The Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group Assessment of metastatic disease status at death in 435 patients with large choroidal melanoma in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) Arch Ophthalmol 2001 119 670 676 10.1001/archopht.119.5.670 11346394
Wilson, The Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group et al (2001) Assessment of metastatic disease status at death in 435 patients with large choroidal melanoma in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS). Arch Ophthalmol 119:670–67611346394 10.1001/archopht.119.5.670
61. Lane AM Kim IK Gragoudas ES Survival rates in patients after treatment formetastasis from uveal melanoma JAMA Ophthalmol 2018 136 9 981 986 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.2466 29955797
Lane AM, Kim IK, Gragoudas ES (2018) Survival rates in patients after treatment formetastasis from uveal melanoma. JAMA Ophthalmol 136(9):981–986. 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.246629955797 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.2466
62. Harbour JW Frequent mutation of BAP1 in metastasizing uveal melanomas Science 1979 330 6009 1410 1413 10.1126/science.1194472
Harbour JW et al (1979) Frequent mutation of BAP1 in metastasizing uveal melanomas. Science 330(6009):1410–1413. 10.1126/science.119447210.1126/science.1194472
63. van Beek J Absence of intraocular lymphatic vessels in uveal melanomas with extrascleral growth Cancers (Basel) 2019 11 2 228 10.3390/cancers11020228 30781402
van Beek J et al (2019) Absence of intraocular lymphatic vessels in uveal melanomas with extrascleral growth. Cancers (Basel) 11(2):228. 10.3390/cancers1102022830781402 10.3390/cancers11020228
64. Zimmerman LE McLean IW Foster WD Does enucleation of the eye containing a malignant melanoma prevent or accelerate the dissemination of tumour cells Br J Ophthalmol 1978 62 6 420 425 10.1136/bjo.62.6.420 352389
Zimmerman LE, McLean IW, Foster WD (1978) Does enucleation of the eye containing a malignant melanoma prevent or accelerate the dissemination of tumour cells. Br J Ophthalmol 62(6):420–425. 10.1136/bjo.62.6.420352389 10.1136/bjo.62.6.420
65. Eskelin S Tumor doubling times in metastatic malignant melanoma of the uvea tumor progression before and after treatment Ophthalmology 2000 107 8 1443 1449 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00182-2 10919885
Eskelin S (2000) Tumor doubling times in metastatic malignant melanoma of the uvea tumor progression before and after treatment. Ophthalmology 107(8):1443–1449. 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00182-210919885 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00182-2
66. Grossniklaus HE Zhang Q You S McCarthy C Heegaard S Coupland SE Metastatic ocular melanoma to the liver exhibits infiltrative and nodular growth patterns Hum Pathol 2016 57 165 175 10.1016/j.humpath.2016.07.012 27476775
Grossniklaus HE, Zhang Q, You S, McCarthy C, Heegaard S, Coupland SE (2016) Metastatic ocular melanoma to the liver exhibits infiltrative and nodular growth patterns. Hum Pathol 57:165–175. 10.1016/j.humpath.2016.07.01227476775 10.1016/j.humpath.2016.07.012
67. Yang H Dithmar S Grossniklaus HE Interferon α2b decreases hepatic micrometastasis in a murine model of ocular melanoma by activation of intrinsic hepatic natural killer cells Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science 2004 45 7 2056 10.1167/iovs.03-1331
Yang H, Dithmar S, Grossniklaus HE (2004) Interferon α2b decreases hepatic micrometastasis in a murine model of ocular melanoma by activation of intrinsic hepatic natural killer cells. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science 45(7):2056. 10.1167/iovs.03-133110.1167/iovs.03-1331
68. Lattier JM Yang H Crawford S Grossniklaus HE Host pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) prevents progression of liver metastasis in a mouse model of uveal melanoma Clin Exp Metastasis 2013 30 8 969 976 10.1007/s10585-013-9596-3 23793989
Lattier JM, Yang H, Crawford S, Grossniklaus HE (2013) Host pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) prevents progression of liver metastasis in a mouse model of uveal melanoma. Clin Exp Metastasis 30(8):969–976. 10.1007/s10585-013-9596-323793989 10.1007/s10585-013-9596-3
69. Pucci M Colorectal cancer-derived small extracellular vesicles induce TGFβ1-mediated epithelial to mesenchymal transition of hepatocytes Cancer Cell Int 2023 23 1 77 10.1186/s12935-023-02916-8 37072829
Pucci M et al (2023) Colorectal cancer-derived small extracellular vesicles induce TGFβ1-mediated epithelial to mesenchymal transition of hepatocytes. Cancer Cell Int 23(1):77. 10.1186/s12935-023-02916-837072829 10.1186/s12935-023-02916-8
70. Ambrosini G Rai AJ Carvajal RD Schwartz GK Uveal melanoma exosomes induce a prometastatic microenvironment through macrophage migration inhibitory factor Mol Cancer Res 2022 20 4 661 669 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-21-0526 34992145
Ambrosini G, Rai AJ, Carvajal RD, Schwartz GK (2022) Uveal melanoma exosomes induce a prometastatic microenvironment through macrophage migration inhibitory factor. Mol Cancer Res 20(4):661–669. 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-21-052634992145 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-21-0526
71. Tsering T Uveal melanoma-derived extracellular vesicles display transforming potential and carry protein cargo involved in metastatic niche preparation Cancers (Basel) 2020 12 10 2923 10.3390/cancers12102923 33050649
Tsering T et al (2020) Uveal melanoma-derived extracellular vesicles display transforming potential and carry protein cargo involved in metastatic niche preparation. Cancers (Basel) 12(10):2923. 10.3390/cancers1210292333050649 10.3390/cancers12102923
72. Nathan P Overall survival benefit with tebentafusp in metastatic uveal melanoma N Engl J Med 2021 385 13 1196 1206 10.1056/nejmoa2103485 34551229
Nathan P et al (2021) Overall survival benefit with tebentafusp in metastatic uveal melanoma. N Engl J Med 385(13):1196–1206. 10.1056/nejmoa210348534551229 10.1056/nejmoa2103485
73. Nathan P SELPAC: A 3 arm randomised phase II study of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib alone or in combination with paclitaxel (PT) in metastatic uveal melanoma abstract Ann Oncol 2019 30 5 908 910 10.1093/annonc/mdz394.070 31111878
Nathan P et al (2019) SELPAC: A 3 arm randomised phase II study of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib alone or in combination with paclitaxel (PT) in metastatic uveal melanoma abstract. Ann Oncol 30(5):908–91031111878 10.1093/annonc/mdz394.070
74. Luke JJ Randomized phase II trial and tumor mutational spectrum analysis from cabozantinib versus chemotherapy in metastatic uveal melanoma (Alliance A091201) Clin Cancer Res 2020 26 4 804 811 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1223 31558480
Luke JJ et al (2020) Randomized phase II trial and tumor mutational spectrum analysis from cabozantinib versus chemotherapy in metastatic uveal melanoma (Alliance A091201). Clin Cancer Res 26(4):804–811. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-122331558480 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1223
75. Carvajal RD Selumetinib in combination with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma: a phase III, multicenter, randomized trial (SUMIT) J Clin Oncol 2018 36 1232 1239 10.1200/JCO 29528792
Carvajal RD et al (2018) Selumetinib in combination with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma: a phase III, multicenter, randomized trial (SUMIT). J Clin Oncol 36:1232–1239. 10.1200/JCO29528792 10.1200/JCO
76. Carvajal RD Effect of selumetinib vs chemotherapy on progression-free survival in uveal melanoma: a randomized clinical trial JAMA 2014 311 23 2397 2405 10.1001/jama.2014.6096 24938562
Carvajal RD et al (2014) Effect of selumetinib vs chemotherapy on progression-free survival in uveal melanoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 311(23):2397–2405. 10.1001/jama.2014.609624938562 10.1001/jama.2014.6096
77. Sacco JJ Sunitinib versus dacarbazine as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic uveal melanom J Clin Oncol 2013 31 9031 10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.9031
Sacco JJ et al (2013) Sunitinib versus dacarbazine as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic uveal melanom. J Clin Oncol 31:903110.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.9031
78. Schmittel A A randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine plus treosulfan versus treosulfan alone in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma Ann Oncol 2006 17 12 1826 1829 10.1093/annonc/mdl309 16971664
Schmittel A et al (2006) A randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine plus treosulfan versus treosulfan alone in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Ann Oncol 17(12):1826–1829. 10.1093/annonc/mdl30916971664 10.1093/annonc/mdl309
79. Ambrosini G Identification of unique MEK-dependent genes in GNAQ mutant uveal melanoma involved in cell growth, tumor cell invasion, and MEK resistance Clin Cancer Res 2012 18 13 3552 3561 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3086 22550165
Ambrosini G et al (2012) Identification of unique MEK-dependent genes in GNAQ mutant uveal melanoma involved in cell growth, tumor cell invasion, and MEK resistance. Clin Cancer Res 18(13):3552–3561. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-308622550165 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3086
80. Yarchoan M Hopkins A Jaffee EM Tumor mutational burden and response rate to PD-1 inhibition N Engl J Med 2017 377 25 2500 2501 10.1056/nejmc1713444 29262275
Yarchoan M, Hopkins A, Jaffee EM (2017) Tumor mutational burden and response rate to PD-1 inhibition. N Engl J Med 377(25):2500–2501. 10.1056/nejmc171344429262275 10.1056/nejmc1713444
81. Ny L The PEMDAC phase 2 study of pembrolizumab and entinostat in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma Nat Commun 2021 10.1038/s41467-021-25332-w 34453044
Ny L et al (2021) The PEMDAC phase 2 study of pembrolizumab and entinostat in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Nat Commun. 10.1038/s41467-021-25332-w34453044 10.1038/s41467-021-25332-w
82. Jos´ J Nivolumab plus ipilimumab for treatment-Nä ıve metastatic uveal melanoma: an open-label, multicenter, phase II trial by the Spanish Multidisciplinary Melanoma Group (GEM-1402) J Clin Oncol 2021 39 586 598 10.1200/JCO.20 33417511
Jos´ J et al (2021) Nivolumab plus ipilimumab for treatment-Nä ıve metastatic uveal melanoma: an open-label, multicenter, phase II trial by the Spanish Multidisciplinary Melanoma Group (GEM-1402). J Clin Oncol 39:586–598. 10.1200/JCO.2033417511 10.1200/JCO.20
83. Pelster MS Nivolumab and ipilimumab in metastatic uveal melanoma: results from a single-arm phase ii study J Clin Oncol 2020 39 599 607 10.1200/JCO.20 33125309
Pelster MS et al (2020) Nivolumab and ipilimumab in metastatic uveal melanoma: results from a single-arm phase ii study. J Clin Oncol 39:599–607. 10.1200/JCO.2033125309 10.1200/JCO.20
84. Ausman RK Aust JB Isolated perfusion of the liver with HN2 Surg Forum 1960 10 77 79 13795177
Ausman RK, Aust JB (1960) Isolated perfusion of the liver with HN2. Surg Forum 10:77–7913795177
85. Aust JB Ausman RK The technique of liver perfusion Cancer Chemother Rep 1960 10 23 33 13685192
Aust JB, Ausman RK (1960) The technique of liver perfusion. Cancer Chemother Rep 10:23–3313685192
86. Grover A Alexander HR The past decade of experience with isolated hepatic perfusion Oncologist 2004 9 6 653 664 10.1634/theoncologist.9-6-653 15561809
Grover A, Alexander HR (2004) The past decade of experience with isolated hepatic perfusion. Oncologist 9(6):653–664. 10.1634/theoncologist.9-6-65315561809 10.1634/theoncologist.9-6-653
87. O Bagge (2023) Isolated hepatic perfusion with melphalan for patients with isolated uveal melanoma liver metastases: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase iii trial (the SCANDIUM trial). J clin Oncol. Online ahead of print.
88. Ku Y Extracorporeal adriamycin-removal following hepatic artery infusion: use of direct hemoperfusion combined with veno-venous bypass Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi 1989 90 10 1758 1764 2594003
Ku Y et al (1989) Extracorporeal adriamycin-removal following hepatic artery infusion: use of direct hemoperfusion combined with veno-venous bypass. Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi 90(10):1758–17642594003
89. Curley SA Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with complete hepatic venous isolation and extracorporeal chemofiltration: a feasibility study of a novel system Anticancer Drugs 1991 2 2 175 183 10.1097/00001813-199104000-00008 1958862
Curley SA et al (1991) Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with complete hepatic venous isolation and extracorporeal chemofiltration: a feasibility study of a novel system. Anticancer Drugs 2(2):175–183. 10.1097/00001813-199104000-000081958862 10.1097/00001813-199104000-00008
90. Pingpank JF Phase I study of hepatic arterial melphalan infusion and hepatic venous hemofiltration using percutaneously placed catheters in patients with unresectable hepatic malignancies J Clin Oncol 2005 23 15 3465 3474 10.1200/JCO.2005.00.927 15908655
Pingpank JF et al (2005) Phase I study of hepatic arterial melphalan infusion and hepatic venous hemofiltration using percutaneously placed catheters in patients with unresectable hepatic malignancies. J Clin Oncol 23(15):3465–3474. 10.1200/JCO.2005.00.92715908655 10.1200/JCO.2005.00.927
91. Hughes MS Results of a randomized controlled multicenter phase iii trial of percutaneous hepatic perfusion compared with best available care for patients with melanoma liver metastases Ann Surg Oncol 2016 23 4 1309 1319 10.1245/s10434-015-4968-3 26597368
Hughes MS et al (2016) Results of a randomized controlled multicenter phase iii trial of percutaneous hepatic perfusion compared with best available care for patients with melanoma liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 23(4):1309–1319. 10.1245/s10434-015-4968-326597368 10.1245/s10434-015-4968-3
92. Zager JS FOCUS phase 3 trial results: percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) with melphalan for patients with ocular melanoma liver metastases (PHP-OCM-301/301A) J Clin Oncol 2022 40 16_suppl 9510 9510 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.9510
Zager JS et al (2022) FOCUS phase 3 trial results: percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) with melphalan for patients with ocular melanoma liver metastases (PHP-OCM-301/301A). J Clin Oncol 40(16_suppl):9510–9510. 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.951010.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.9510
