Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Percutaneous hepatic perfusion improves response rates and progression-free survival in metastatic uveal melanomaLiver perfusion shows better response rates for metastatic uveal melanoma

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that while PHP improves response rates and progression-free survival, no clear survival benefit was observed.

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) compared to best alternative care (BAC) in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). The analysis included 455 patients treated with PHP and 125 patients treated with BAC.

Key findings indicate that PHP is associated with a higher overall response rate of 47.4% compared to 6.0% for BAC. Additionally, the median progression-free survival was longer in the PHP group (7.7 months) than in the BAC group (2.6 months). The 1-year progression-free survival was also higher in the PHP cohort (30.1%) versus the BAC cohort (6.4%).

While PHP showed improvements in response and progression metrics, the authors explicitly noted that no clear survival benefit was observed between the two groups. Hematologic adverse events were reported as the most frequent toxicities in studies involving PHP. Clinical application of PHP for mUM should be interpreted with caution due to the lack of significant differences in overall survival outcomes.

Living with metastatic uveal melanoma is incredibly difficult, as the cancer spreads from the eye to other parts of the body. Doctors are constantly looking for ways to manage the disease more effectively. A recent review of data looked at how percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) compares to standard care for these patients.

In this study, researchers compared 455 patients who received PHP against 125 patients receiving best alternative care. The results showed that those receiving liver perfusion had a much higher overall response rate of 47.4% compared to just 6.0% in the other group. Additionally, the time before the cancer progressed was longer for those on the PHP treatment.

While these numbers look promising for how patients respond to treatment, it is important to be cautious. The analysis did not find a clear survival benefit between the two groups. Also, some patients receiving liver perfusion experienced blood-related side effects. Because this data comes from a meta-analysis of different studies, talk to your doctor about what these results mean for your specific care plan.

What this means for you:
Liver perfusion shows better response rates and longer progression-free time than standard care for some patients.

Common questions

What is the difference in how patients respond to treatment?

Patients who received percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) showed a much higher overall response rate of 47.4% compared to only 6.0% for those receiving best alternative care. This suggests that liver perfusion may help more people show an initial positive response to treatment.

Does this treatment help patients live longer?

While the data shows a higher response rate and longer progression-free survival, the study did not find a clear overall survival benefit between those receiving liver perfusion and those receiving standard care. You should discuss these specific results with your doctor.

Are there any side effects to this treatment?

The most frequently reported toxicities for patients undergoing percutaneous hepatic perfusion were hematologic adverse events, which are issues related to blood cells. Speak with your medical team to understand how these risks apply to your specific situation.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 455
EvidenceLevel 1
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedAug 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Evidence on the efficacy of percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) in metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) is largely derived from single-arm studies without comparators, complicating interpretation of treatment benefit, particularly for survival. This meta-analysis aimed to synthesize available evidence on the efficacy and safety of PHP in patients with mUM and compare outcomes with best alternative care (BAC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to Feb 17, 2026. Studies evaluating PHP in patients with mUM and BAC cohorts derived from randomized trials of PHP or isolated hepatic perfusion were included. The endpoints were 1-year overall survival (OS), 2-year OS, median OS (mOS), 1-year progression-free survival (PFS), median PFS (mPFS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included (one reporting on both PHP and BAC), comprising 455 patients treated with PHP (nine studies) and 125 treated with BAC (three studies). The pooled 1-year OS was 65.5% (95% CI 52.8-75.5%) for PHP and 64.3% (95% CI 13.3-90.7%) for BAC. The pooled 2-year OS was 35.4% (95% CI 28.5-42.4%) and 28.1% (95% CI 9.6-50.2%), and mOS 17.3 months (95% CI 11.8-22.8) and 14.0 months (95% CI 4.3-23.6), respectively. PHP was associated with higher ORR (47.4% vs 6.0%), longer 1-year PFS (30.1% vs 6.4%) and mPFS (7.7 vs 2.6 months). Hematologic adverse events were the most frequently reported toxicities in PHP studies. CONCLUSION: PHP is associated with improved ORR and PFS compared with BAC in patients with mUM, although no clear survival benefit was observed.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.