4.5 Article

The Liverpool uveal melanoma liver metastases pathway: Outcome following liver resection

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 109, Issue 6, Pages 542-547

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jso.23535

Keywords

metastases; ocular; melanoma; hepatic resection; hepatectomy

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK [16746] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To determine the outcome of patients that underwent liver resection for metastases from uveal melanoma. Methods Over a 9-year period, patients referred with uveal melanoma metastases were included. Following treatment of primary uveal melanoma, high-risk patients were offered to be enrolled into a 6-monthly non-contrast liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance. Following detection of liver metastases, patients were staged with a contrast-enhanced (Primovist (R)) liver MRI, computer tomography (CT) of the thorax and staging laparoscopy. Results 155 patients were referred with uveal melanoma liver metastases, of which 17 (11.0%) patients had liver resection and one patient was treated with percutaneous radio-frequency ablation. The majority of patients undergoing liver resection were treated with multiple metastectomies (n = 8) and three patients had major liver resections. The overall median survival for patients treated with surgery/ablation was 27 (14-90) months, and this was significantly better compared to patients treated palliatively [median = 8(1-30) months, P < 0.001]. Following surgery, 11 patients had recurrent disease [median = 13(6-36) months]. Patients who had undergone a major liver resection had a significantly poorer disease-free survival (P = 0.037). Conclusions Patients who can undergo surgical resection for metastatic uveal melanoma have a more favorable survival compared to those who do not. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014 109:???-???. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available