Background: After radical resection of a nonmetastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (M0 MCC), postoperative radiation therapy (RT) is recommended as it improves survival. However, the role of RT in specific subgroups of M0 MCC is unclear. We sought to identify whether there is a differential survival benefit from RT in specific M0 MCC patient subgroups. Methods: M0 MCC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database registry were collected. The best prognostic age, tumor size, and lymph node ratio (LNR, ratio between positive lymph nodes and resected lymph nodes) cutoffs were calculated. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 5644 M0 MCC patients (median age 77 years, 62% male) were included: 4022 (71%) node-negative (N0) and 1551 (28%) node-positive (N+). Overall, 2682 patients (48%) received RT. Age > 76.5 years, tumor size >13.5 mm, and LNR >0.215 were associated with worse OS. RT was associated with longer OS in the M0 MCC, N0, and N+ group and independently associated with a 25%, 27%, and 26% reduction in the risk for death, respectively. RT benefit on survival was increased in tumor size >13.5 mm in the N0 group and LNR >0.215 in the N+ group. No OS benefit from RT was observed in T4 tumors (N0 and N+ groups). Conclusions: RT was associated with improved survival in M0 MCC, irrespective of the nodal status. LNR >0.215 is a useful prognostic factor for clinical decision-making and for stratification and interpretation of clinical trials.

Lymph node ratio predicts efficacy of postoperative radiation therapy in nonmetastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: A population-based analysis

Andrini E.;Siepe G.;Mosconi C.;Ambrosini V.;Ricci C.;Marchese P. V.;Ricco G.;Casadei R.;Campana D.
2022

Abstract

Background: After radical resection of a nonmetastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (M0 MCC), postoperative radiation therapy (RT) is recommended as it improves survival. However, the role of RT in specific subgroups of M0 MCC is unclear. We sought to identify whether there is a differential survival benefit from RT in specific M0 MCC patient subgroups. Methods: M0 MCC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database registry were collected. The best prognostic age, tumor size, and lymph node ratio (LNR, ratio between positive lymph nodes and resected lymph nodes) cutoffs were calculated. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 5644 M0 MCC patients (median age 77 years, 62% male) were included: 4022 (71%) node-negative (N0) and 1551 (28%) node-positive (N+). Overall, 2682 patients (48%) received RT. Age > 76.5 years, tumor size >13.5 mm, and LNR >0.215 were associated with worse OS. RT was associated with longer OS in the M0 MCC, N0, and N+ group and independently associated with a 25%, 27%, and 26% reduction in the risk for death, respectively. RT benefit on survival was increased in tumor size >13.5 mm in the N0 group and LNR >0.215 in the N+ group. No OS benefit from RT was observed in T4 tumors (N0 and N+ groups). Conclusions: RT was associated with improved survival in M0 MCC, irrespective of the nodal status. LNR >0.215 is a useful prognostic factor for clinical decision-making and for stratification and interpretation of clinical trials.
Lamberti G.; Andrini E.; Siepe G.; Mosconi C.; Ambrosini V.; Ricci C.; Marchese P.V.; Ricco G.; Casadei R.; Campana D.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Lamberti_Cancer Medicine_2022.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 266.62 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
266.62 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Downloads.zip

accesso aperto

Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 686.45 kB
Formato Zip File
686.45 kB Zip File Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/901606
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact