Magnetic seed localization is feasible for non-palpable melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and soft tissue sarcoma lesions.

BACKGROUND: Localization of non-palpable melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) and soft tissue sarcoma (STS) lesions can be difficult due to size, location, and obesity of patients or fibrosis due to previous treatments. Magnetic seed localization (MSL) is a common method to localize non-palpable breast lesions, but the feasibility of MSL for non-palpable melanoma, MCC and STS lesions has not yet been described. METHODS: In this retrospective single center cohort study, all consecutive patients between January 2021 and October 2023 who had a resection of a non-palpable melanoma, MCC or STS lesion guided by Sirius Pintuition, a MSL technique, were included. The primary endpoint was successful lesion localization during surgery and the secondary endpoints were seed migration, negative resection margins, and complications. RESULTS: Seventy-nine seeds were placed for 76 lesions, which were resected during 68 surgeries in 61 patients. All lesions (100 %) were localized and resected. Median time of surgery was 44 min. No seed migration was observed. A negative resection margin was achieved for 60 (78.9 %) lesions. Clavien Dindo grade ≥2 complications occurred in 7.4 %. CONCLUSION: Magnetic seed localization with Sirius Pintuition is feasible for both non-palpable melanoma, MCC, and STS lesions.

Elevated preoperative serum interleukin-6 level is predictive for worse postoperative outcome after soft tissue sarcoma surgery.

BACKGROUND: The pro-inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) plays a role in cancer development and progression, but research into the predictive value of IL-6 on postoperative outcome in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is scarce. The purpose of this study is to investigate the predictive value of serum IL-6 level for the achievement of assumed (post)operative outcome after STS surgery, the so-called textbook outcome. METHODS: Preoperative IL-6 serum levels were collected in all patients with a STS at first presentation between February 2020 and November 2021. Textbook outcome was defined as a R0 resection, no complications, no blood transfusions, no reoperation within the postoperative period, no prolonged hospital stay, no hospital readmission within 90-days, and no mortality within 90-days. Factors associated with textbook outcome were determined by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Among 118 patients with primary, non-metastatic STS, 35.6% achieved a textbook outcome. Univariate analysis showed that smaller tumor size (p = 0.026), lower tumor grade (p = 0.006), normal hemoglobin (Hb, p = 0.044), normal white blood cell (WBC) count (p = 0.018), normal C-reactive protein (CRP) serum level (p = 0.002) and normal IL-6 serum level (p = 1.5 × 10-5) were associated with achieving textbook outcome after surgery. Multivariable analysis showed that elevated IL-6 serum level (p = 0.012) was significantly associated with not achieving a textbook outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Increased IL-6 serum level is predictive for not achieving a textbook outcome after surgery for primary, non-metastatic STS.

Isolated limb perfusion for locally advanced melanoma in the immunotherapy era.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the advent of effective systemic therapy for melanoma, isolated limb perfusion (ILP) was the most effective local treatment for advanced in-transit melanoma (ITM). However, many patients who are now treated by ILP will have received prior immunotherapy. We sought to compare response rates to ILP in patients who had previously received immunotherapy compared to immunotherapy naive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent ILP for ITM between January 2015 and July 2020 for melanoma were identified retrospectively from two tertiary institutions. Surgical morbidity and oncologic outcomes were compared between immunotherapy naive and immunotherapy pre-treated patients. RESULTS: 97 perfusions were performed for melanoma. Of those, 18 patients had undergone prior immunotherapy. There were no differences in clinicopathological characteristics or perioperative outcomes between cohorts. Surgical morbidity and local toxicity were similar between both cohorts. Patients who underwent immunotherapy prior to ILP had significantly decreased complete response (CR) rates compared with immunotherapy-naïve (6% vs 47%, p = 0.0018) and a significantly decreased overall survival (OS) and distant progression free survival (DPFS) (p = 0.0031 and p = 0.0006 respectively). There was no difference in overall response (OR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) and local progression free survival (LPFS) between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Oncological outcomes and complete response rates are worse in patients who have received immunotherapy prior to ILP compared with immunotherapy naïve patients. Despite this, ILP is still a valuable second line treatment for local control in patients who have multiple, bulky and/or recurrent ITM post immunotherapy.