Kelly L Harms1, Mark A Healy2,3, Paul Nghiem4,5,6, Arthur J Sober7, Timothy M Johnson8,2,9, Christopher K Bichakjian8, Sandra L Wong2,3,10. 1. Department of Dermatology, University of Michigan Health System and Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. kharms@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System and Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Center for Healthcare Outcomes & Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Medicine/Dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Department of Dermatology, University of Michigan Health System and Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 9. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Michigan Health System and Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 10. Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The first consensus Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) staging system was published in 2010. New information on the clinical course prompts review of MCC staging. METHODS: A total of 9387 MCC cases from the National Cancer Data Base Participant User File with follow-up and staging data (1998-2012) were analyzed. Prognostic differences based on clinical and pathological staging were evaluated. Survival estimates were compared by disease extent. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of cases presented with local disease, whereas 26 and 8 % presented with nodal and distant disease. Disease extent at presentation was predictive of 5-year overall survival (OS) with estimates of 51, 35, and 14 % for local, nodal, and distant disease. Tumor burden at the regional nodal basin was predictive of 5-year OS with estimates of 40 and 27 % for clinically occult and clinically detected nodal disease. For local disease, we confirm improved prognosis when the regional nodal basin was negative by pathological compared with clinical staging. We identified 336 cases with clinically detected nodal disease and unknown primary tumor and showed improved prognosis over cases presenting with concurrent primary tumor (OS estimates of 42 vs. 27 %). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of a national dataset of MCC cases validates the predictive value of disease extent at presentation. Separation of clinical and pathological stage groups and regrouping of unknown primary tumors are supported by the analysis. The revised staging system provides more accurate prognostication and has been formally accepted by the AJCC staging committee for inclusion in the 8th edition.
BACKGROUND: The first consensus Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) staging system was published in 2010. New information on the clinical course prompts review of MCC staging. METHODS: A total of 9387 MCC cases from the National Cancer Data Base Participant User File with follow-up and staging data (1998-2012) were analyzed. Prognostic differences based on clinical and pathological staging were evaluated. Survival estimates were compared by disease extent. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of cases presented with local disease, whereas 26 and 8 % presented with nodal and distant disease. Disease extent at presentation was predictive of 5-year overall survival (OS) with estimates of 51, 35, and 14 % for local, nodal, and distant disease. Tumor burden at the regional nodal basin was predictive of 5-year OS with estimates of 40 and 27 % for clinically occult and clinically detected nodal disease. For local disease, we confirm improved prognosis when the regional nodal basin was negative by pathological compared with clinical staging. We identified 336 cases with clinically detected nodal disease and unknown primary tumor and showed improved prognosis over cases presenting with concurrent primary tumor (OS estimates of 42 vs. 27 %). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of a national dataset of MCC cases validates the predictive value of disease extent at presentation. Separation of clinical and pathological stage groups and regrouping of unknown primary tumors are supported by the analysis. The revised staging system provides more accurate prognostication and has been formally accepted by the AJCC staging committee for inclusion in the 8th edition.
Authors: Franz O Smith; Binglin Yue; Suroosh S Marzban; Brooke L Walls; Michael Carr; Ryan S Jackson; Christopher A Puleo; Tapan Padhya; C Wayne Cruse; Ricardo J Gonzalez; Amod A Sarnaik; Michael J Schell; Ronald C DeConti; Jane L Messina; Vernon K Sondak; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jayasri G Iyer; Barry E Storer; Kelly G Paulson; Bianca Lemos; Jerri Linn Phillips; Christopher K Bichakjian; Nathalie Zeitouni; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Vernon Sondak; Clark C Otley; Siegrid S Yu; Timothy M Johnson; Nanette J Liegeois; David Byrd; Arthur Sober; Paul Nghiem Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2014-02-09 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Tina I Tarantola; Laura A Vallow; Michele Y Halyard; Roger H Weenig; Karen E Warschaw; Amy L Weaver; Randall K Roenigk; Jerry D Brewer; Clark C Otley Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Swapnil D Kachare; Jan H Wong; Nasreen A Vohra; Emmanuel E Zervos; Timothy L Fitzgerald Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christopher K Bichakjian; Thomas Olencki; Murad Alam; James S Andersen; Daniel Berg; Glen M Bowen; Richard T Cheney; Gregory A Daniels; L Frank Glass; Roy C Grekin; Kenneth Grossman; Alan L Ho; Karl D Lewis; Daniel D Lydiatt; William H Morrison; Kishwer S Nehal; Kelly C Nelson; Paul Nghiem; Clifford S Perlis; Ashok R Shaha; Wade L Thorstad; Malika Tuli; Marshall M Urist; Timothy S Wang; Andrew E Werchniak; Sandra L Wong; John A Zic; Karin G Hoffmann; Nicole R McMillian; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 12.693
Authors: Rocio Garcia-Carbonero; Ivan Marquez-Rodas; Luis de la Cruz-Merino; Javier Martinez-Trufero; Miguel Angel Cabrera; Jose Maria Piulats; Jaume Capdevila; Enrique Grande; Salvador Martin-Algarra; Alfonso Berrocal Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-04-08
Authors: A Bob; F Nielen; J Krediet; J Schmitter; D Freundt; D Terhorst; J Röwert-Huber; J Kanitakis; E Stockfleth; Ch Ulrich; M Weichenthal; F Egberts; B Lange-Asschenfeldt Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Phyu P Aung; Edwin Roger Parra; Souptik Barua; Dawen Sui; Jing Ning; Barbara Mino; Debora Alejandra Ledesma; Jonathan L Curry; Priyadharsini Nagarajan; Carlos A Torres-Cabala; Eleni Efstathiou; Anh G Hoang; Michael K Wong; Jennifer A Wargo; Alexander J Lazar; Arvind Rao; Victor G Prieto; Ignacio Wistuba; Michael T Tetzlaff Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Matthew C Perez; Felipe R de Pinho; Amanda Holstein; Daniel E Oliver; Syeda M H Naqvi; Youngchul Kim; Jane L Messina; Erin Burke; Ricardo J Gonzalez; Amod A Sarnaik; C Wayne Cruse; Evan J Wuthrick; Louis B Harrison; Vernon K Sondak; Jonathan S Zager Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 5.344