Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Cancer Med ; 9(4): 1374-1382, 2020 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31883234

RESUMO

Approximately one-third of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) patients eventually develop distant metastatic disease. Little is known about whether the location of the primary lesion is predictive of initial distant metastatic site, or if survival likelihood differs depending on the metastatic site. Such data could inform imaging/surveillance practices and improve prognostic accuracy. Multivariate and competing-risk analyses were performed on a cohort of 215 MCC patients with distant metastases, 31% of whom had two or more initial sites of distant metastasis. At time of initial distant metastasis in the 215 patients, metastatic sites (n = 305) included non-regional lymph nodes (present in 41% of patients), skin/body wall (25%), liver (23%), bone (21%), pancreas (8%), lung (7%), and brain (5%). Among the 194 patients who presented with MCC limited to local or regional sites (stage I-III) but who ultimately developed distant metastases, distant progression occurred in 49% by 1 year and in 80% by 2 years following initial diagnosis. Primary MCC locations differed in how likely they were to metastasize to specific organs/sites (P < .001). For example, liver metastases were far more likely from a head/neck primary (43% of 58 patients) versus a lower limb primary (5% of 39 patients; P < .0001). Skin-only distant metastasis was associated with lower MCC-specific mortality as compared to metastases in multiple organs/sites (HR 2.7; P = .003), in the liver (HR 2.1; P = .05), or in distant lymph nodes (HR 2.0; P = .045). These data reflect outcomes before PD1-pathway inhibitor availability, which may positively impact survival. In conclusion, primary MCC location is associated with a pattern of distant spread, which may assist in optimizing surveillance. Because it is linked to survival, the site of initial distant metastasis should be considered when assessing prognosis.


Assuntos
Carcinoma de Célula de Merkel/epidemiologia , Metástase Linfática/patologia , Infecções por Polyomavirus/epidemiologia , Neoplasias Cutâneas/patologia , Infecções Tumorais por Vírus/epidemiologia , Idoso , Carcinoma de Célula de Merkel/diagnóstico , Carcinoma de Célula de Merkel/secundário , Carcinoma de Célula de Merkel/virologia , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Estudos Longitudinais , Linfonodos , Metástase Linfática/diagnóstico , Masculino , Poliomavírus das Células de Merkel/isolamento & purificação , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Infecções por Polyomavirus/diagnóstico , Infecções por Polyomavirus/virologia , Prognóstico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Neoplasias Cutâneas/mortalidade , Análise de Sobrevida , Resultado do Tratamento , Infecções Tumorais por Vírus/diagnóstico , Infecções Tumorais por Vírus/virologia
2.
Adv Radiat Oncol ; 1(4): 244-251, 2016.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28740894

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and often aggressive skin cancer. Typically, surgery is the primary treatment. Postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) is often recommended to improve local control. It is unclear whether PORT is indicated in patients with favorable Stage IA head and neck (HN) MCC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 46 low-risk HN MCC cases treated between 2006 and 2015. Inclusion criteria were defined as a primary tumor size of ≤ 2 cm, negative pathological margins, negative sentinel lymph node biopsy, and no immunosuppression. Local recurrence (LR) was defined as tumor recurrence within 2 cm of the primary surgical bed and estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Omission of PORT was offered to all 46 patients, of which 23 patients received PORT and 23 did not. No patient received adjuvant chemotherapy. There were no significant differences in surgical margins, tumor size, depth, lympho-vascular invasion status, or demographics between the two patient groups. Median follow-up for all patients was 3.7 years. Six of the 23 patients who did not receive PORT developed an LR. Compared to the group that received PORT, there was a significantly higher risk of LR in the group treated without PORT (26% vs. 0%, P = .02). Median time to LR was 11 months. All local failures were effectively salvaged. There was no difference in MCC-specific and overall survival between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with HN MCC, omission of PORT was associated with a significantly higher risk of local recurrence even among those patients with the lowest-risk tumors (i.e., Stage IA without immune suppression). Thus, it is important to weigh the benefits of PORT against the side effect profile on a case-specific basis for each patient.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA