Purpose To define a safe treatment dose of ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) when applied in combination with percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (M-PHP) in metastatic uveal melanoma ... Show morePurpose To define a safe treatment dose of ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) when applied in combination with percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (M-PHP) in metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) patients (NCT04283890), primary objective was defining a safe treatment dose of IPI/NIVO plus M-PHP. Toxicity was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 (CTCAEv4.03). Secondary objective was response rate, PFS and OS.Materials and Methods Patients between 18-75 years with confirmed measurable hepatic mUM according to RECIST 1.1 and WHO performance score 0-1 were included. Intravenous IPI was applied at 1 mg/kg while NIVO dose was increased from 1 mg/kg in cohort 1 to 3 mg/kg in cohort 2. Transarterial melphalan dose for M-PHP was 3 mg/kg (maximum of 220 mg) in both cohorts. Treatment duration was 12 weeks, consisting of four 3-weekly courses IPI/NIVO and two 6-weekly M-PHPs.Results Seven patients were included with a median age of 63.6 years (range 50-74). Both dose levels were well tolerated without dose-limiting toxicities or deaths. Grade III/IV adverse events (AE) were observed in 2/3 patients in cohort 1 and in 3/4 patients in cohort 2, including Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), febrile neutropenia and cholecystitis. Grade I/II immune-related AEs occurred in all patients, including myositis, hypothyroidism, hepatitis and dermatitis. There were no dose-limiting toxicities. The safe IPI/NIVO dose was defined as IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg. There was 1 complete response, 5 partial responses and 1 stable disease (3 ongoing responses with a median FU of 29.1 months).Conclusion Combining M-PHP with IPI/NIVO was safe in this small cohort of patients with mUM at a dose of IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg. Show less
Tong, T.M.L.; Kooij, M.K. van der; Speetjens, F.M.; Erkel, A.R. van; Meer, R.W. van der; Lutjeboer, J.; ... ; Kapiteijn, E. 2022
Background: While immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, no standard treatments are available for patients with metastatic uveal... Show moreBackground: While immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, no standard treatments are available for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (UM). Several locoregional therapies are effective in the treatment of liver metastases, such as percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (M-PHP). The available literature suggests that treatment with ICI following locoregional treatment of liver UM metastases can result in clinical response. We hypothesize that combining M-PHP with ICI will lead to enhanced antigen presentation and increased immunomodulatory effect, improving control of both hepatic and extrahepatic disease.Methods: Open-label, single-center, phase Ib/randomized phase II trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of the combination of M-PHP with ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1 antibody) in patients with unresectable hepatic metastases of UM in first-line treatment, with or without the limited extrahepatic disease. The primary objective is to determine the safety, toxicity, and efficacy of the combination regimen, defined by maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 1 year. Secondary objectives include overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR). A maximum of 88 patients will be treated in phase I and phase II combined. Baseline characteristics will be described with descriptive statistics (t-test, chi-square test). To study the association between risk factors and toxicity, a logistic regression model will be applied. PFS and OS will be summarized using Kaplan-Meier curves.Discussion: This is the first trial to evaluate this treatment combination by establishing the maximum tolerated dose and evaluating the efficacy of the combination treatment. M-PHP has shown to be a safe and effective treatment for UM patients with liver metastases and became the standard treatment option in our center. The combination of ICI with M-PHP is investigated in the currently described trial which might lead to a better treatment response both in and outside the liver. Show less
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... Show morePurposePercutaneous 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. Show less
Meershoek, P.; Berg, N.S. van den; Lutjeboer, J.; Burgmans, M.C.; Meer, R.W. van der; Rijswijk, C.S.P. van; ... ; Leeuwen, F.W.B. van 2021
Purpose: The goal of our study was to determine the influence of ultrasound (US)-coupled volume navigation on the use of computed tomography (CT) during minimally-invasive radiofrequency and... Show morePurpose: The goal of our study was to determine the influence of ultrasound (US)-coupled volume navigation on the use of computed tomography (CT) during minimally-invasive radiofrequency and microwave ablation procedures of liver lesions.Method: Twenty-five patients with 40 liver lesions of different histological origin were retrospectively analysed. Lesions were ablated following standard protocol, using 1) conventional US-guidance, 2) manual registered volume navigation (mVNav), 3) automatic registered (alpha VNav) or 4) CT-guidance. In case of ultrasonographically inconspicuous lesions, conventional US-guidance was abandoned and mVNav was used. If mVNav was also unsuccessful, the procedure was either continued with alpha VNav or CT-guidance. The number, size and location of the lesions targeted using the different approaches were documented.Results: Of the 40 lesions, sixteen (40.0 %) could be targeted with conventional US-guidance only, sixteen (40.0 %) with mVNav, three (7.5 %) with aVNav and five (12.5 %) only through the use of CT-guidance. Of the three alternatives (mVNav, alpha VNav and CT only) the mean size of the lesions targeted using mVNav (9.1 +/- 4.6 mm) was significantly smaller from those targeted using US-guidance only (20.4 +/- 9.4 mm; p < 0.001). The location of the lesions did not influence the selection of the modality used to guide the ablation.Conclusions: In our cohort, mVNav allowed the ablation procedure to become less dependent on the use of CT. mVNav supported the ablation of lesions smaller than those that could be ablated with US only and doubled the application of minimally-invasive US-guided ablations. Show less
Background Ocular melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy and has a very poor prognosis once liver metastases occur. The aim of this study was to prospectively assess the... Show moreBackground Ocular melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy and has a very poor prognosis once liver metastases occur. The aim of this study was to prospectively assess the efficacy and safety of percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (M-PHP) using the new second-generation (GEN 2) hemofiltration system in patients with ocular melanoma metastases confined to the liver. Methods Prospective, single-center, single-arm, phase II study including patients with unresectable ocular melanoma metastases confined to the liver. Treatment consisted of two M-PHP procedures at 6-8 weeks interval. Procedures were performed using the CHEMOSAT (GEN 2) system with 3 mg/kg melphalan. Primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and best overall response (BOR). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), hepatic PFS (hPFS), and safety. Results Sixty-four M-PHP procedures were performed in 35 patients between February 2014 and June 2017. The ORR was 72%. BOR was as follows: complete response in 3%, partial response in 69%, stable disease in 13%, and progressive disease in 16%. There was no treatment-related mortality. Fourteen serious adverse events occurred. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months (range 5.6-69.5), median OS was 19.1 months and was significantly longer in responders than in nonresponders (27.5 vs. 11.9 months, p < 0.001). The 1- and 2-year OS was 77% and 43%, respectively. PFS and hPFS were 7.6 and 11.2 months, respectively. Conclusions M-PHP using the GEN 2 filter can achieve a high ORR and prolonged survival in patients with liver-only ocular melanoma metastases. Show less
Lutjeboer, J.; Burgmans, M.C.; Chung, K.; Erkel, A.R. van 2015
