Literature DB >> 28540062

Frequency and locations of systemic metastases in Merkel cell carcinoma by imaging.

Maria Kouzmina1, Virve Koljonen2, Junnu Leikola2, Tom Böhling3, Eila Lantto4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The primary neuroendocrine skin cancer, Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), has a well-known predilection to metastasize systemically. However, the experience of systemic metastases in MCC is mainly disseminated through case reports due to the rarity of MCC.
PURPOSE: To elucidate the frequency and locations of systemic metastasis in MCC by reviewing the imaging of patients with metastatic MCC in a national cohort.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with diagnosed metastatic MCC by imaging studies in Finland during 1999-2012 were included in this study. We reviewed their imaging studies to evaluate the most frequent sites for systemic metastasis and determined the latency between the primary tumor diagnosis and systemic metastasis. The material includes 30 MCC patients with complete imaging series and 187 examinations, of which 102 (54%) were CT images.
RESULTS: The mean latency from the primary tumor diagnosis to systemic metastasis was 2.1 years and the mean latency between the radiologic diagnosis of the metastases and death was 299 days. Metastases were recorded in several organ systems in most of the cases, and at least two separate metastatic sites in 63% of the cases. Metastatic spread was noted in 60% of the cases in distant lymph nodes. Liver and lungs were the most affected solid organs.
CONCLUSION: Systemic metastasis in MCC has no predilection site, basically every organ system can be involved. Most of the systemic metastases were recorded during the first two years after the MCC diagnosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Neuroendocrine carcinoma; latency; skin; systemic metastasis

Year:  2017        PMID: 28540062      PMCID: PMC5433554          DOI: 10.1177/2058460117700449

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol Open


Introduction

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare neuroendocrine skin cancer that occurs mainly in fair-skinned, elderly individuals. Globally, 80% of the tumors are initiated by Merkel cell polyoma virus (MCV) DNA integration into the cancer cells early in MCC development (1). MCC has an inherent capacity for early and aggressive local and systemic dissemination (2). Approximately 65–70% of the patients present with clinically localized disease to the skin (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage I or II), 25–26% have palpable regional lymphadenopathy AJCC stage III, and 5–8% have distant metastasis, AJCC stage IV (3,4). The draining lymph node basin is most commonly the first site of metastasis, in 27–60% of the cases (5,6). Distant dissemination occurs in up to 40–50% of patients that develop visceral metastasis, particularly prevalent in the lungs, liver, and bone (7,8). Owing to the aggressive course of the disease, its mortality exceeds those of other forms of skin cancers (9). About one-third of the patients die of MCC including all stages and courses of disease (10). Current treatment guidelines for MCC entail imaging studies during the course of the disease (11), from the preoperative stage to the postoperative follow-up. In addition to the clinical examination, ultrasound (US) of the loco regional nodes and total body positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) will complete the staging in preoperative examinations (11) and direct the choice of the surgical treatment modality. In the follow-up, nodal US and CT or PET-CT are proposed (11). However, it is not clear whether imaging has any role in the follow-up of MCC patients. The rarity of the prevalence of MCC limits the amount of information on the experiences on systemic metastases in MCC and the available information is mainly case reports. Reasons for this paucity of information might lie in the fact that when the disease has metastasized, it is considered incurable (11). This retrospective study was designed to assess the most frequent sites for systemic dissemination in MCC and to determine the latency between the primary tumor diagnosis and systemic metastasis by imaging.

Material and Methods

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Helsinki University Hospital. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs granted authors the permission to collect the patient data for study purposes. Permission to retrieve all images for study purpose was granted by the National Institute for Health and Welfare. Inclusion criteria for this study was that patient was diagnosed with systemic metastases MCC and images were available for review. No informed consent was required as all the patients had deceased prior to the study commencing. Our group has gathered primary MCC tumor samples available in Finland since 1978. Immunohistochemistry served to validate all of the diagnoses. To accompany the tumor samples, comprehensive patient records have been gathered from hospital files and Finnish Cancer Registry records. The ongoing MCC projects of our research group continue to use this database. A total of 57 MCC patients diagnosed between 1979 and 2013 with systemic metastases were identified. Imaging studies of these patients were retrieved for analysis. When autopsy was performed, the autopsy report was compared with the radiologic findings. All medical records and images were reviewed and detailed data on patient and tumor characteristics, including tumor size, location, stage of disease at the time of diagnosis, local recurrence, local and systemic metastasis, and survival, were obtained from the hospital and primary healthcare center files of the patients fitting the inclusion criteria. All included patients were staged according to the AJCC classification for this study (3). A total of 27 patients were excluded from this study because, due to archiving regulations, no imaging studies were available. Imaging series were re-evaluated blindly by an experienced radiologist (EL), and lesions were categorized on the basis of the anatomical locations. Distant lymph node metastasis was classified as systemic metastasis to the lymph nodes beyond the nearest regional area of the primary tumor.

Results

The study cohort included 30 MCC patients with 187 accompanying imaging series (Table 1). The imaging studies were taken during 1999–2012. There were equal numbers of men and women. The mean age of the patients at the time of the MCC diagnosis was 75 years (age range, 50–89 years). The majority of the patients presented with cutaneous tumors (n = 12/40%) located in the head and neck region. Two patients in this series presented with unknown primary tumor. Cutaneous primary tumor sizes were in the range of 6–100 mm, with a mean of 25 mm. All patients died during the follow-up, with a mean follow-up time of 1088 days (range, 60 days–14.8 years). An autopsy report was available for four patients.
Table 1.

Demographic, treatment, tumor, and latency data for 30 patients with MCC.

Patient no.Age/ genderLocation of the primary tumorPrimary tumor size (mm)AJCC stage at presentationTreatments before metastasisImaging methodDistant metastasisLatency from diagnosis to metastas(days)Latency from metastasis to death (days)Follow-up (days)
182 FHead and neck10IVPalliative surgeryBody CT, head MRILiver, lung, DLN, ST, orbita104101205
272 MUnknown primaryNAIVPalliative radiation therapyUS neck, abdomenDLN10121122
360 FLower extremity17ISurgery, radiation therapyTHX CTHeart984341018
484 MUpper extremity30IISurgery, radiation therapyBody CT, MRIBone, DLN, ST40057457
586 FLower extremity11ISurgeryBody CT, abdominal USDLN544242786
656 FLower extremity15ISurgeryBody CTDLN51942135407
781 FHead and neck13ISurgeryBScBone8426932777
887 FUpper extremity26IIIPalliative surgery, palliative radiation therapyBScKidney, bone4420574477
977 MParotis/head and neck25IVSurgery, chemo therapyNeck, THX CTLiver11166177
1083 FHead and neck20IISurgery including SNB, radiation therapyBody CTDLN335315650
1178 FHead and neck20IIISurgeryBody CTAdrenal gland, DLN1985282013
1272 FLower extremity13ISurgeryAbdominal, Head CTDLN, brain11965781774
1380 MHead and neck14ISurgery, radiation therapyFDG-PET-CTLiver, DLN22195316
1473 MUpper extremity26IISurgery, radiation therapyBody CTLiver948991047
1561 MLower extremity35IIISurgery, radiation therapyBody CTLiver, pancreas, lung, adrenal11062931399
1686 FPosterior torso40IISurgeryTHX CTLung36118379
1778 MHead and neck18ISurgery, radiation therapyBody CTPancreas, lung, anus, retroperitoneal and peritoneal cavity85946905
1878 MLower extremity40IISurgeryBody CTDLN, ST616191807
1976 MLower extremity100IISurgery, radiation therapyBody CT, MRIStomach, STNA143376
2087 FUpper extremity6ISurgeryAbdominal CTLiver50221523
2189 FLower extremity30IIISurgeryAbdominal CTPancreas, DLN88231913
2272 MHead and neck10IVPalliative radiation therapy, chemotherapyAbdominal CTLiver, stomach, lung right, ST, DLN retroperitoneal and peritoneal cavity52781608
2381 MLower extremity50IISurgery including SNBNeck, body CTDLN, pancreas230242472
2466 FHead and neckNAIIISurgery, radiation therapyFDG-PET-CTBone, lung299189485
2565 FUpper extremity10ISurgeryHead, body CTLiver, lung, bone, brain, DLN119471590
2650 MHead and neck20IISurgeryBody CTDLN, ST366482848
2776 MHead and neck15ISurgery including neck dissection radiation therapyNeck, abdomen, THX CTSpinal cord, bone, DLN, ST, retroperitoneal and peritoneal cavity30383386
2886 MUnknown primaryNAIVNo treatmentHead, body CTLung, liver, spinal cord channel, bone, ST461460
2968 MUpper extremity20IISurgeryBody, THX CT, head MRI, neck USLungs, DLN, ST, pancreas, brain, pleura548110658
3074 FHead and neck40IISurgery, radiation therapyTHX CT, neck MRIDLN15818572015

BSc, bone scintigraphy; CT, computed tomography; DLN, distant lymph nodes; FDG-PET-CT, fluoro deoxy glucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NA, not available; ST, subcutaneous tissue; THX, thorax; US, ultrasound.

Demographic, treatment, tumor, and latency data for 30 patients with MCC. BSc, bone scintigraphy; CT, computed tomography; DLN, distant lymph nodes; FDG-PET-CT, fluoro deoxy glucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NA, not available; ST, subcutaneous tissue; THX, thorax; US, ultrasound. All patients received some type of treatment for their MCC before the detection of the metastases. In 28 patients (93%) the treatment was surgical intervention (Table 1). In 13 (43%) of the cases, surgery was the only treatment before the detection of metastatic spread. The most frequent adjuvant treatment was radiation therapy given to 14 (46%) cases followed by chemotherapy in two cases (7%). Of the 187 imaging examinations, 102 (54%) were CT images, 62 (33%) were conventional chest X-ray images, 12 (6%) were magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), seven (3.7%) were ultrasound exams, two (1%) were PET-CT, and two (1%) were bone scintigraphy. The mean latency from the primary tumor diagnosis to systemic metastasis by imaging was 2.1 years (range, 11 days–14.2 years). The mean latency between the radiologic diagnosis of the metastases and death was 299 days (range, 14 days–7.4 years) (Table 2).
Table 2.

Mean latencies between presentation and metastases diagnosis by imaging stratified by time and site of the metastases.

Latency from the MCC diagnosis (years)Location of tumorLatency from the MCC diagnosis (months)
<2Subcutaneous tissue12
Liver13
Lungs15
Distant lymph nodes16
Stomach17
Retroperitoneal and peritoneal cavity19
2–3Pancreas24
Brain and orbita25
Heart32
3–4Kidneys and adrenal glands38
Vertebral column and bones40
Mean latencies between presentation and metastases diagnosis by imaging stratified by time and site of the metastases. Table 3 presents the metastases stratified by their location and frequency. In most cases the patients had metastases in several organ systems, in 19/30 (63%) patients at least two separate metastatic sites were recognized. Metastasis affected the distant lymph nodes in the majority of the cases, 18/30 (60%); the liver and lungs were the most affected solid organs, with 9/30 (30%) cases each.
Table 3.

Sites, numbers of metastases, and imaging modalities in 30 patients with MCC.

Sites of metastasisNumber of patients (n (%))Multiple/ Solitary (n)Imaging modality (n)
Distant lymph nodes18 (60)15/3CT MRI US PET-CT22 3 2 1
Liver9 (30)7/2CT PET-CT8 1
Lungs9 (30)1/8CT PET-CT8 1
Subcutaneous tissue8 (27)5/3CT MRI7 1
Vertebral column and bones7 (23)4/3CT BSc MRI PET-CT3 2 1 1
Pancreas6 (20)0/6CT6
Brain or orbita4 (13)1/3CT MRI2 2
Kidneys or adrenal glands3 (10)0/3CT BSc2 1
Stomach2 (7)0/2CT2
Heart1 (3)0/1CT1
Retroperitoneal and peritoneal cavity3 (10)2/1CT3
Sites, numbers of metastases, and imaging modalities in 30 patients with MCC. Typically, metastases in the distant lymph nodes, retroperitoneal and peritoneal cavity, liver, subcutaneous tissue, and bones presented with multiple metastatic foci (Figs. 1 and 2). In the lungs, pancreas, stomach, and heart, the metastasis usually presented as a solitary focus.
Fig. 1.

Multiple liver metastases in a patient with primary tumor in the neck (patient 1). Most of the metastases are enhanced by contrast medium in the arterial phase images (a) and show washout in venous phase images (b).

Fig. 2.

Large retroperitoneal, peritoneal and subcutaneous metastases in a patient with primary tumor in the neck (patient 27).

Multiple liver metastases in a patient with primary tumor in the neck (patient 1). Most of the metastases are enhanced by contrast medium in the arterial phase images (a) and show washout in venous phase images (b). Large retroperitoneal, peritoneal and subcutaneous metastases in a patient with primary tumor in the neck (patient 27).

Discussion

The imaging studies in patients with metastatic MCC were reviewed. No predilection site for distant metastases were found, as every visceral organ, skeletal system, subcutaneous tissue, and distant lymph nodes were involved. However, there is presently no clear agreement on the role of imaging in the management and follow-up of MCC (12). A recent European consensus advocates follow-up with nodal US together with once a year CT or PET-CT for up to five years (11). The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology on MCC recommends imaging studies to be performed as clinically indicated during the follow-up (13). The most frequent metastatic site found in this study was distant lymph nodes. This finding was in concordance with previous studies (12). The liver and lungs were the most frequently affected solid organs, which was in line with previous literature (7,8). Current treatment guidelines for MCC consider surgery the mainstay of treatment (11,13). Sentinel node biopsy is indicated for patients with clinically node negative disease, whatever the size of the tumor, in combination with wide excision of the primary tumor (11,13). Sentinel node biopsy may reveal thus patients with occult metastasis and predict unfavorable course of disease (14,15). Recent data point to the direction that primary tumor size does not predict nodal involvement, which is contrary to an earlier paradigm (16,17). However, when the disease has metastasized, there is currently no established curative treatment (11). The median time to recurrence in MCC patients was approximately eight months, with 90% of the recurrences occurring within 24 months (5,18,19). Subcutaneous metastases in this series had the shortest mean latency from the MCC diagnosis with a time span of only 12 months, a further 66% of the patients were diagnosed with metastases within 24 months. All patients in this study died a mean of just ten months (range, 14 days–7.4 years) after distant metastases were confirmed. This falls well within the range reported in previous literature, where survivals were just nine to 12 months after metastatic disease was recognized, depending on the study (5,20–22). MCC was once regarded as an indolent skin tumor (23–25), but it has since proven to be one of the deadliest of skin cancers. Although rare in incidence, in Europe with an annual incidence rate of 1.3/1,000,000 (26), MCC is the second most common cause of skin cancer deaths after melanoma, with an estimated cause-specific death rate of 0.43 per 100,000 persons (27). Most of the MCC patients die with non-localized, i.e. metastatic disease (28), which accords with the findings in other cancers (29). Most of the patients present with localized disease (4). Nevertheless, MCC grows rapidly within just few months (2) and tumor doubling times are five to 12 days, or even as rapid as one to five days in the most aggressive tumor subtypes (30). This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. One inherent limitation lies in the retrospective design and relatively small number of patients. Further, most of our imaging studies were performed as clinically indicated. The archiving of images is only 20 years in Finland; therefore, we were not able to get access to all the images of MCC patients with metastatic disease. Although MCC has been recognized and characterized since 1972 (31), it was not until the discovery of the Merkel cell polyoma virus in 2008 (1) that an enormous interest in MCC arose, both in research and reporting clinical experience. The rapidly expanding body of knowledge regarding MCC has just recently generated treatment recommendations (11,13). Apart from studies in the 1980s and 1990s, there has been little interest in reporting the metastatic disease due to the fact that there is no curative treatment for metastatic MCC. In conclusion, this current study showed that systemic metastasis in MCC has no predilection site or organ, as basically every organ system was involved in our study. Most of the systemic metastases were recognized during the first two years after the MCC diagnosis.
  30 in total

Review 1.  Merkel cell carcinoma: critical review with guidelines for multidisciplinary management.

Authors:  Christopher K Bichakjian; Lori Lowe; Christopher D Lao; Howard M Sandler; Carol R Bradford; Timothy M Johnson; Sandra L Wong
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 2.  MRI of merkel cell carcinoma: histologic correlation and review of the literature.

Authors:  Suzanne E Anderson; Karl T Beer; Andrej Banic; Lynne S Steinbach; Matthias Martin; Esther E Friedrich; Edouard Stauffer; Peter Vock; Richard H Greiner
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Merkel cell tumor. A chemosensitive skin cancer.

Authors:  C J Wynne; J H Kearsley
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1988-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Is aggressive surgical management justified in the treatment of Merkel cell carcinoma?

Authors:  R B Shack; R M Barton; J DeLozier; R S Rees; J B Lynch
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Neuroendocrine (Merkel cell) carcinoma of the skin.

Authors:  S Pilotti; F Rilke; L Lombardi
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 6.394

6.  Relationships among primary tumor size, number of involved nodes, and survival for 8044 cases of Merkel cell carcinoma.

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

7.  Effect of host, tumor, diagnostic, and treatment variables on outcomes in a large cohort with Merkel cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Maryam M Asgari; Monica M Sokil; E Margaret Warton; Jayasri Iyer; Kelly G Paulson; Paul Nghiem
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 10.282

8.  Clonal integration of a polyomavirus in human Merkel cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Huichen Feng; Masahiro Shuda; Yuan Chang; Patrick S Moore
Journal:  Science       Date:  2008-01-17       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Clinical characteristics of Merkel cell carcinoma at diagnosis in 195 patients: the AEIOU features.

Authors:  Michelle Heath; Natalia Jaimes; Bianca Lemos; Arash Mostaghimi; Linda C Wang; Pablo F Peñas; Paul Nghiem
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 11.527

10.  Trabecular carcinoma of the skin: further clinicopathologic and morphologic study.

Authors:  M H Kroll; C Toker
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 5.534

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Symptoms of and Palliative Treatment for Unresectable Skin Cancer.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Goto; Yoshio Kiyohara; Masahisa Shindo; Osamu Yamamoto
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2019-03-27

Review 2.  Multimodality imaging findings of infection-induced tumors.

Authors:  Moataz Soliman; Nicholas Guys; Peter Liu; Mariam Moshiri; Christine O Menias; Vincent M Mellnick; Hatice Savas; Mohamed Badawy; Khaled M Elsayes; Ayman H Gaballah
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2022-09-07

3.  18F-FDG PET/CT for Posttreatment Surveillance Imaging of Patients with Stage III Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Sonia Mahajan; Christopher A Barker; Audrey Mauguen; Sandra P D'Angelo; Randy Yeh; Neeta Pandit-Taskar
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2021-10-07       Impact factor: 11.082

4.  Clinical benefit of baseline imaging in Merkel cell carcinoma: Analysis of 584 patients.

Authors:  Neha Singh; Nora A Alexander; Kristina Lachance; Christopher W Lewis; Aubriana McEvoy; Gensuke Akaike; David Byrd; Sanaz Behnia; Shailender Bhatia; Kelly G Paulson; Paul Nghiem
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 11.527

Review 5.  Imaging of Merkel Cell Carcinoma: What Imaging Experts Should Know.

Authors:  Gensuke Akaike; Tomoko Akaike; Shaimaa A Fadl; Kristina Lachance; Paul Nghiem; Fatemeh Behnia
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2019 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.312

6.  Merkel Cell Carcinoma, Version 1.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Authors:  Christopher K Bichakjian; Thomas Olencki; Sumaira Z Aasi; Murad Alam; James S Andersen; Rachel Blitzblau; Glen M Bowen; Carlo M Contreras; Gregory A Daniels; Roy Decker; Jeffrey M Farma; Kris Fisher; Brian Gastman; Karthik Ghosh; Roy C Grekin; Kenneth Grossman; Alan L Ho; Karl D Lewis; Manisha Loss; Daniel D Lydiatt; Jane Messina; Kishwer S Nehal; Paul Nghiem; Igor Puzanov; Chrysalyne D Schmults; Ashok R Shaha; Valencia Thomas; Yaohui G Xu; John A Zic; Karin G Hoffmann; Anita M Engh
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 12.693

7.  Patterns of Metastasis in Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Yun Song; Feredun S Azari; Rebecca Tang; Adrienne B Shannon; John T Miura; Douglas L Fraker; Giorgos C Karakousis
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 4.339

8.  A rare case of Merkel cell carcinoma with ovarian metastasis.

Authors:  Nicole Keller; Beatrix Haemmerle; Seraina Schmid
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol Rep       Date:  2019-03-20

9.  Demographic features and changing incidence and presentation of Merkel cell carcinoma in a retrospective single-center case series.

Authors:  Soha Ghanian; Michelle Koh; Joanna Walker
Journal:  Arch Dermatol Res       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 3.017

Review 10.  Clinical Relevance of Liquid Biopsy in Melanoma and Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Magali Boyer; Laure Cayrefourcq; Olivier Dereure; Laurent Meunier; Ondine Becquart; Catherine Alix-Panabières
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.