Isolated limb infusion: Efficacy, toxicity and an evolution in the management of in-transit melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Isolated limb infusion (ILI) delivers low-flow chemotherapy via percutaneous catheters to treat melanoma in-transit metastases. Objective To describe the experience of two regional referral centres with ILI. Methods A retrospective review of patients who underwent ILI between 2002 and 2012 was performed. Outcomes were measured using the WHO criteria for response, the Wieberdink toxicity score and long-term limb function using the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). Results Fifty-two patients (mean age 66 years [range 27 to 90 years], female sex 65%, and lower [treated] limb in 86%) with 54 ILIs were reviewed. Wieberdink toxicity score was ≥3 in 21 (39%) procedures. Median follow-up was 18 months (range one to 117 months). Initial complete response (CR) was 29%, partial response 27%, stable disease 18% and progressive disease 27%. Predictors of better initial response were low disease burden and previous treatment. One or more treatments after ILI were common (65%). At 12 months, 19% of ILI patients had died from melanoma but 44% of surviving patients experienced limb CR. At 24 months, 57% of surviving patients experienced limb CR. The quality of life in the surviving, contactable patients according to the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score was 89%. Conclusion Even if ILI does not result in CR for melanoma intransit metastases. it may slow disease progression as a single therapy, but more frequently in combination with other modalities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".