Immune Status in Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Relationships With Clinical Factors and Independent Prognostic Value.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
05
01
2021
accepted:
17
03
2021
pubmed:
15
4
2021
medline:
28
9
2021
entrez:
14
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Immunosuppression (IS) currently is not considered in staging for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). An analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was performed to investigate immune status as an independent predictor of overall survival (OS) for patients with MCC and to describe the relationship between immune status and other prognostic factors. The NCDB was queried for patients with a diagnosis of MCC from 2010 to 2016 who had known immune status. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to define factors associated with OS. Secondary models were constructed to assess the association between IS etiology and OS. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to characterize relationships between immune status and other factors. The 3-year OS was lower for the patients with IS (44.6%) than for the immunocompetent (IC) patients (68.7%; p < 0.0001). Immunosuppression was associated with increased adjusted mortality hazard (hazard ratio [HR], 2.36, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.03-2.75). The etiology of IS was associated with OS (p = 0.0015), and patients with solid-organ transplantation had the lowest 3-year OS (32.7%). Immunosuppression was associated with increased odds of greater nodal burden (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.37-2.11) and lymphovascular invasion (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.23-2.03). Immune status was independently prognostic for the OS of patients with localized MCC. The etiology of IS may be associated with differential survival outcomes. Multiple adverse prognostic factors were associated with increased likelihood of IS. Immune status, and potentially the etiology of IS, may be useful prognostic factors to consider for future MCC staging systems.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Immunosuppression (IS) currently is not considered in staging for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). An analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was performed to investigate immune status as an independent predictor of overall survival (OS) for patients with MCC and to describe the relationship between immune status and other prognostic factors.
METHODS
METHODS
The NCDB was queried for patients with a diagnosis of MCC from 2010 to 2016 who had known immune status. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to define factors associated with OS. Secondary models were constructed to assess the association between IS etiology and OS. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to characterize relationships between immune status and other factors.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The 3-year OS was lower for the patients with IS (44.6%) than for the immunocompetent (IC) patients (68.7%; p < 0.0001). Immunosuppression was associated with increased adjusted mortality hazard (hazard ratio [HR], 2.36, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.03-2.75). The etiology of IS was associated with OS (p = 0.0015), and patients with solid-organ transplantation had the lowest 3-year OS (32.7%). Immunosuppression was associated with increased odds of greater nodal burden (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.37-2.11) and lymphovascular invasion (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.23-2.03).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Immune status was independently prognostic for the OS of patients with localized MCC. The etiology of IS may be associated with differential survival outcomes. Multiple adverse prognostic factors were associated with increased likelihood of IS. Immune status, and potentially the etiology of IS, may be useful prognostic factors to consider for future MCC staging systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33852099
doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-09944-6
pii: 10.1245/s10434-021-09944-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6154-6165Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Paulson KG, Park SY, Vandeven NA, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma: current U.S. incidence and projected increases based on changing demographics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:457–463.e452.
Ma JE, Brewer JD. Merkel cell carcinoma in immunosuppressed patients. Cancers Basel. 2014;6:1328–50.
doi: 10.3390/cancers6031328
Clarke CA, Robbins HA, Tatalovich Z, et al. Risk of Merkel cell carcinoma after solid organ transplantation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(2):1–9.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju382
Bhatia S, Afanasiev O, Nghiem P. Immunobiology of Merkel cell carcinoma: implications for immunotherapy of a polyomavirus-associated cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2011;13:488–97.
doi: 10.1007/s11912-011-0197-5
Paulson KG, Iyer JG, Blom A, et al. Systemic immune suppression predicts diminished Merkel cell carcinoma-specific survival independent of stage. J Invest Dermatol. 2013;133:642–6.
doi: 10.1038/jid.2012.388
Asgari MM, Sokil MM, Warton EM, Iyer J, Paulson KG, Nghiem P. Effect of host, tumor, diagnostic, and treatment variables on outcomes in a large cohort with Merkel cell carcinoma. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:716–23.
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.8116
Tarantola TI, Vallow LA, Halyard MY, et al. Prognostic factors in Merkel cell carcinoma: analysis of 240 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68:425–32.
doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.09.036
Bichakjian CK, Olencki T, Aasi SZ, et al. Merkel Cell Carcinoma, version 1.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16:742–74.
Trinidad CM, Torres-Cabala CA, Prieto VG, Aung PP. Update on eighth-edition American Joint Committee on Cancer classification for Merkel cell carcinoma and histopathological parameters that determine prognosis. J Clin Pathol. 2019;72:337–40.
Bhatia S, Storer BE, Iyer JG, et al. Adjuvant radiation therapy and chemotherapy in Merkel cell carcinoma: survival analyses of 6908 cases from the National Cancer Database. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(9):1–9.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw042
Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY. The National Cancer Database: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:683–90.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-007-9747-3
Ruhl J, Hofferkamp J, Ward E, et al. Site-Specific Data Item (SSDI) manual. Springfield, IL: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries; 2019.
Agarwal P, Moshier E, Ru M, et al. Immortal time bias in observational studies of time-to-event outcomes: assessing effects of postmastectomy radiation therapy using the National Cancer Database. Cancer Control. 2018;25:1073274818789355.
doi: 10.1177/1073274818789355
Park HS, Gross CP, Makarov DV, Yu JB. Immortal time bias: a frequently unrecognized threat to validity in the evaluation of postoperative radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:1365–73.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.10.025
Grambsch PM, Therneau TM. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika. 1994;81:515–26.
doi: 10.1093/biomet/81.3.515
Eisemann N, Waldmann A, Katalinic A. Imputation of missing values of tumour stage in population-based cancer registration. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:129.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-129
van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1–67.
doi: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03
Robitzsch A, Grund S. miceadds: Some Additional Multiple Imputation Functions, Especially for ‘mice’. R package version 3.11-6. 2021. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=miceadds .
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017. https://www.R-project.org/ .
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1495–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
Penn I, First MR. Merkel’s cell carcinoma in organ recipients: report of 41 cases. Transplantation. 1999;68:1717–21.
doi: 10.1097/00007890-199912150-00015
An KP, Ratner D. Merkel cell carcinoma in the setting of HIV infection. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45:309–12.
doi: 10.1067/mjd.2001.114732
Brewer JD, Shanafelt TD, Otley CC, et al. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia is associated with decreased survival of patients with malignant melanoma and Merkel cell carcinoma in a SEER population-based study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:843–9.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.9605
Garrett GL, Blanc PD, Boscardin J, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for skin cancer in organ transplant recipients in the United States. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:296–303.
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.4920
Liang E, Brower JV, Rice SR, Buehler DG, Saha S, Kimple RJ. Merkel cell carcinoma analysis of outcomes: a 30-year experience. PloS One. 2015;10:e0129476.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129476
Hui AC, Stillie AL, Seel M, Ainslie J. Merkel cell carcinoma: 27-year experience at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80:1430–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.04.061
Ladomersky E, Zhai L, Lauing KL, et al. Advanced age increases immunosuppression in the brain and decreases immunotherapeutic efficacy in subjects with glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26:5232–45.
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3874
Cook M, Baker K, Redman M, et al. Differential outcomes among immunosuppressed patients with Merkel cell carcinoma: impact of immunosuppression type on cancer-specific and overall survival. Am J Clin Oncol. 2019;42:82–8.
doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000482
Bryant MK, Ward C, Gaber CE, Strassle PD, Ollila DW, Laks S. Decreased survival and increased recurrence in Merkel cell carcinoma significantly linked with immunosuppression. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122:653–9.
doi: 10.1002/jso.26048
Tseng YD, Nguyen MH, Baker K, et al. Effect of patient immune status on the efficacy of radiation therapy and recurrence-free survival among 805 patients with Merkel cell carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102:330–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.05.075
Conic RRZ, Ko J, Saridakis S, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in Merkel cell carcinoma: predictors of sentinel lymph node positivity and association with overall survival. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81:364–72.
doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.03.027
Thompson AK, Kelley BF, Prokop LJ, Murad MH, Baum CL. Risk factors for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma recurrence, metastasis, and disease-specific death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:419–28.
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.4994
Fields RC, Busam KJ, Chou JF, et al. Recurrence and survival in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy for Merkel cell carcinoma: analysis of 153 patients from a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2529–37.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1662-y
Harounian JA, Molin N, Galloway TJ, et al. Effect of sentinel lymph node biopsy and LVI on Merkel cell carcinoma prognosis and treatment. Laryngoscope. 2020;131(3):E828–35.
pubmed: 32663337
Kirita K, Ishii G, Matsuwaki R, et al. Identification of biological properties of intralymphatic tumor related to the development of lymph node metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. PloS One. 2013;8:e83537.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083537
Ikemura S, Aramaki N, Fujii S, et al. Changes in the tumor microenvironment during lymphatic metastasis of lung squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Sci. 2017;108:136–42.
doi: 10.1111/cas.13110
Paulson KG, Iyer JG, Tegeder AR, et al. Transcriptome-wide studies of Merkel cell carcinoma and validation of intratumoral CD8+ lymphocyte invasion as an independent predictor of survival. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1539–46.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.6308
Fields RC, Busam KJ, Chou JF, et al. Five hundred patients with Merkel cell carcinoma evaluated at a single institution. Ann Surg. 2011;254:465–73.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31822c5fc1