Neha Singh1, Nora A Alexander1, Kristina Lachance1, Christopher W Lewis2, Aubriana McEvoy3, Gensuke Akaike4, David Byrd5, Sanaz Behnia4, Shailender Bhatia6, Kelly G Paulson7, Paul Nghiem8. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St Louis, Missouri. 4. Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 5. Department of Surgery, Section of Surgical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 7. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 8. Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: pnghiem@uw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) guidelines derive from melanoma and do not recommend baseline cross-sectional imaging for most patients. However, MCC is more likely to have metastasized at diagnosis than melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine how often baseline imaging identifies clinically occult MCC in patients with newly diagnosed disease with and without palpable nodal involvement. METHODS: Analysis of 584 patients with MCC with a cutaneous primary tumor, baseline imaging, no evident distant metastases, and sufficient staging data. RESULTS: Among 492 patients with clinically uninvolved regional nodes, 13.2% had disease upstaged by imaging (8.9% in regional nodes, 4.3% in distant sites). Among 92 patients with clinically involved regional nodes, 10.8% had disease upstaged to distant metastatic disease. Large (>4 cm) and small (<1 cm) primary tumors were both frequently upstaged (29.4% and 7.8%, respectively). Patients who underwent positron emission tomography-computed tomography more often had disease upstaged (16.8% of 352), than those with computed tomography alone (6.9% of 231; P = .0006). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clinically node-negative disease, baseline imaging showed occult metastatic MCC at a higher rate than reported for melanoma (13.2% vs <1%). Although imaging is already recommended for patients with clinically node-positive MCC, these data suggest that baseline imaging is also indicated for patients with clinically node-negative MCC because upstaging is frequent and markedly alters management and prognosis.
BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) guidelines derive from melanoma and do not recommend baseline cross-sectional imaging for most patients. However, MCC is more likely to have metastasized at diagnosis than melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine how often baseline imaging identifies clinically occult MCC in patients with newly diagnosed disease with and without palpable nodal involvement. METHODS: Analysis of 584 patients with MCC with a cutaneous primary tumor, baseline imaging, no evident distant metastases, and sufficient staging data. RESULTS: Among 492 patients with clinically uninvolved regional nodes, 13.2% had disease upstaged by imaging (8.9% in regional nodes, 4.3% in distant sites). Among 92 patients with clinically involved regional nodes, 10.8% had disease upstaged to distant metastatic disease. Large (>4 cm) and small (<1 cm) primary tumors were both frequently upstaged (29.4% and 7.8%, respectively). Patients who underwent positron emission tomography-computed tomography more often had disease upstaged (16.8% of 352), than those with computed tomography alone (6.9% of 231; P = .0006). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clinically node-negative disease, baseline imaging showed occult metastatic MCC at a higher rate than reported for melanoma (13.2% vs <1%). Although imaging is already recommended for patients with clinically node-positive MCC, these data suggest that baseline imaging is also indicated for patients with clinically node-negative MCC because upstaging is frequent and markedly alters management and prognosis.
Authors: Bianca D Lemos; Barry E Storer; Jayasri G Iyer; Jerri Linn Phillips; Christopher K Bichakjian; L Christine Fang; Timothy M Johnson; Nanette J Liegeois-Kwon; Clark C Otley; Kelly G Paulson; Merrick I Ross; Siegrid S Yu; Nathalie C Zeitouni; David R Byrd; Vernon K Sondak; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Arthur J Sober; Paul Nghiem Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2010-06-19 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Paul Nghiem; Shailender Bhatia; Evan J Lipson; William H Sharfman; Ragini R Kudchadkar; Andrew S Brohl; Phillip A Friedlander; Adil Daud; Harriet M Kluger; Sunil A Reddy; Brian C Boulmay; Adam I Riker; Melissa A Burgess; Brent A Hanks; Thomas Olencki; Kim Margolin; Lisa M Lundgren; Abha Soni; Nirasha Ramchurren; Candice Church; Song Y Park; Michi M Shinohara; Bob Salim; Janis M Taube; Steven R Bird; Nageatte Ibrahim; Steven P Fling; Blanca Homet Moreno; Elad Sharon; Martin A Cheever; Suzanne L Topalian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul T Nghiem; Shailender Bhatia; Evan J Lipson; Ragini R Kudchadkar; Natalie J Miller; Lakshmanan Annamalai; Sneha Berry; Elliot K Chartash; Adil Daud; Steven P Fling; Philip A Friedlander; Harriet M Kluger; Holbrook E Kohrt; Lisa Lundgren; Kim Margolin; Alan Mitchell; Thomas Olencki; Drew M Pardoll; Sunil A Reddy; Erica M Shantha; William H Sharfman; Elad Sharon; Lynn R Shemanski; Michi M Shinohara; Joel C Sunshine; Janis M Taube; John A Thompson; Steven M Townson; Jennifer H Yearley; Suzanne L Topalian; Martin A Cheever Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elena B Hawryluk; Kevin N O'Regan; Niall Sheehy; Ye Guo; Andrew Dorosario; Christopher G Sakellis; Heather A Jacene; Linda C Wang Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2012-11-03 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Jürgen C Becker; Andreas Stang; James A DeCaprio; Lorenzo Cerroni; Celeste Lebbé; Michael Veness; Paul Nghiem Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Rene Gonzalez; Piotr Rutkowski; Jean-Jacques Grob; C Lance Cowey; Christopher D Lao; John Wagstaff; Dirk Schadendorf; Pier F Ferrucci; Michael Smylie; Reinhard Dummer; Andrew Hill; David Hogg; John Haanen; Matteo S Carlino; Oliver Bechter; Michele Maio; Ivan Marquez-Rodas; Massimo Guidoboni; Grant McArthur; Celeste Lebbé; Paolo A Ascierto; Georgina V Long; Jonathan Cebon; Jeffrey Sosman; Michael A Postow; Margaret K Callahan; Dana Walker; Linda Rollin; Rafia Bhore; F Stephen Hodi; James Larkin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kelly L Harms; Mark A Healy; Paul Nghiem; Arthur J Sober; Timothy M Johnson; Christopher K Bichakjian; Sandra L Wong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Francesca Spada; Paolo Bossi; Corrado Caracò; Vanna Chiarion Sileni; Angelo Paolo Dei Tos; Nicola Fazio; Giovanni Grignani; Michele Maio; Pietro Quaglino; Paola Queirolo; Paolo Antonio Ascierto Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 12.469
Authors: Ann W Silk; Christopher A Barker; Shailender Bhatia; Kathryn B Bollin; Sunandana Chandra; Zeynep Eroglu; Brian R Gastman; Kari L Kendra; Harriet Kluger; Evan J Lipson; Kathleen Madden; David M Miller; Paul Nghiem; Anna C Pavlick; Igor Puzanov; Guilherme Rabinowits; Emily S Ruiz; Vernon K Sondak; Edward A Tavss; Michael T Tetzlaff; Isaac Brownell Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 12.469
Authors: Ellen M Zwijnenburg; Satish F K Lubeek; Johanna E M Werner; Avital L Amir; Willem L J Weijs; Robert P Takes; Sjoert A H Pegge; Carla M L van Herpen; Gosse J Adema; Johannes H A M Kaanders Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 6.639