6 Committee comments
6.1 The Committee found interpretation of the published evidence difficult because reports included heterogeneous groups of patients with different types of primary and secondary tumours, and the procedure had been used in the context of a variety of adjuvant treatments.
6.2 The Committee noted that response of liver tumours on imaging is not necessarily associated with improvements in quality of life or survival: this underpinned the recommendations in section 1.4 for these to be included as outcome measures in any future publications.
6.3 The Committee was advised that the filter technology used to exclude chemotherapy agents from the systemic circulation is improving.
6.4 The Committee recognised that hepatic saturation is typically considered for patients who have a poor prognosis with limited treatment options. It considered that this made information from well-conducted trials on the procedure particularly important to ensure that these patients fully understand the balance of possible benefit and potential harm from this procedure.
6.5 The Committee noted several consultation comments regarding the use of this procedure for metastatic ocular melanoma: this is an uncommon condition for which there are few treatment options. The Committee considered that the initial results from use of this procedure on small numbers of patients with metastatic ocular melanoma justified further research for this condition. It noted that ocular melanoma is included in the International Rare Cancers Initiative, which supports the development of international clinical trials for rare cancers.