Resection Margins in Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Is a 1-cm Margin Wide Enough?

BACKGROUND: Guidelines regarding specific resection margins for primary Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) are not well established. The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend 1- to 2-cm resection margins. This study aimed to determine the impact of margin width on local recurrence (LR), disease-specific survival (DSS), overall survival (OS), and type of wound closure. METHODS: All patients who underwent resection of primary MCC at a single institution from 2000 to 2015 were reviewed. Patient demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients underwent resection of primary MCC with resection margin width identified in the operative report. The median age was 76 years, and 65.8% of the patients were men. Of the 240 patients, 85 (35.4%) had head and neck primaries, 140 (58.3%) had extremity primaries, and 15 (6.3%) had trunk primaries. In terms of margins, 69 patients (28.8%) had a margin of 1 cm, 36 patients (15%) had a margin of 1.1-1.9 cm, and 135 patients (56.2%) had a margin of 2 cm or more. The median follow-up period was 21 months. The LR rate was 2.9% for a margin of 1 cm, 2.8% for a margin of 1.1-1.9 cm, and 5.2% for a margin of 2 cm or more (p = 0.80). The 5-year OS was 63.6% for a margin of 1 cm, 59.7% for a margin of 1.1-1.9, and 70.7% for a margin of 2 cm or more (p = 0.66). The 5-year DSS was 80.3% for a margin of 1 cm, 66.2% for a margin of 1.1-1.9 cm, and 91.8% for a margin of 2 cm or more (p = 0.28). For wound closure, 43.5, 50, and 65.9% of the patients respectively required a flap or graft with a margin of 1, 1.1-1.9, and 2 cm or more (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: A 1-cm resection margins did not increase the risk of LR. Margin width did not make a significant difference in DSS or OS. Larger resection margins increase the need for a graft or flap closure.

Institutional clinical trial accrual volume and survival of patients with head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receive treatment at centers with expertise, but whether provider experience affects survival is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The effect of institutional experience on overall survival (OS) in patients with stage III or IV HNC was investigated within a randomized trial of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG 0129), which compared cisplatin concurrent with standard versus accelerated fractionation radiotherapy. As a surrogate for experience, institutions were classified as historically low- (HLACs) or high-accruing centers (HHACs) based on accrual to 21 RTOG HNC trials (1997 to 2002). The effect of accrual volume on OS was estimated by Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Median RTOG accrual (1997 to 2002) at HLACs was four versus 65 patients at HHACs. Analysis included 471 patients in RTOG 0129 (2002 to 2005) with known human papillomavirus and smoking status. Patients at HLACs versus HHACs had better performance status (0: 62% v 52%; P = .04) and lower T stage (T4: 26.5% v 35.3%; P = .002) but were otherwise similar. Radiotherapy protocol deviations were higher at HLACs versus HHACs (18% v 6%; P < .001). When compared with HHACs, patients at HLACs had worse OS (5 years: 51.0% v 69.1%; P = .002). Treatment at HLACs was associated with increased death risk of 91% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.65) after adjustment for prognostic factors and 72% (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.40) after radiotherapy compliance adjustment. CONCLUSION: OS is worse for patients with HNC treated at HLACs versus HHACs to cooperative group trials after accounting for radiotherapy protocol deviations. Institutional experience substantially influences survival in locally advanced HNC.