CLO21-022: Efficacy and Safety Outcomes With Therapies for Stage I-III Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC): A Systematic Literature Review

Authors:
David Miller Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

Search for other papers by David Miller in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD, PhD
,
Roberto Palencia Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Search for other papers by Roberto Palencia in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MA
,
Ting Yu EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA; an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Search for other papers by Ting Yu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD
,
Amrita Sandhu OPEN VIE (an OPEN Health Company), London, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Amrita Sandhu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MSc
,
Sarah Webb OPEN VIE (an OPEN Health Company), London, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Sarah Webb in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
,
Tom Blaikie OPEN VIE (an OPEN Health Company), London, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Tom Blaikie in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MChem
, and
Murtuza Bharmal EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA; an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Search for other papers by Murtuza Bharmal in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
Full access

BACKGROUND: The incidence of MCC is increasing. Immuno-oncology agents are the standard of care in stage IV MCC. However, less is known for stage I-III MCC, and there is a need for new treatments to minimize progression to late stages. A systematic literature review was conducted to understand how patients with early-stage MCC are treated and assess efficacy and safety of current therapies. METHODS: Embase and PubMed were used to identify publications from January 2014 to October 2019, capturing studies with efficacy and safety outcomes with relevant interventions in patients with stage I-III MCC. The review included monotherapies or combinations of pharmacological treatments, radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy (CT), and surgery (SUR). Adjuvant (adj), neoadjuvant, and maintenance/consolidation therapies after SUR were included. First, 2 reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts for eligibility. Second, the full text of all selected titles were reviewed. Discrepancies were reconciled by an independent reviewer. The 2 reviewers carried out the data extraction and quality check. RESULTS: There were 72 studies included in the review, comprising 5 clinical trials, 57 retrospective and 4 prospective studies, 3 case studies/reports, and 3 economic studies. The identified treatments in stage I-III MCC were RT alone, SUR alone, adjCT, SUR + adjRT, and SUR + adjRT + adjCT. Overall survival (OS) was the most commonly reported efficacy outcome. One large study (n=6908) showed improved OS with SUR + adjRT vs SUR alone in stages I and II; however, this was not shown in stage III. Treatment with adjCT did not demonstrate improved OS in any of stages I-III. Only 4 studies with neoadjuvant treatment were identified in this review. The table below summarizes key efficacy results for OS. Limited safety data regarding RT, SUR, and SUR + adjRT were reported in 4 studies in patients with stage I-III MCC. CONCLUSIONS: While SUR + adjRT was the most commonly used treatment, there is no clear standard of care in stages I-III MCC. Some treatments show benefits; however, there still remains an unmet need to improve treatment outcomes, and safety data are limited. A majority of studies were retrospective and had limited sample sizes; hence, findings should be interpreted with caution. There is potential to assess newer immuno-oncology agents in this patient population.

Table.

Summary of Efficacy Results for OS

Table.

Corresponding Author: Murtuza Bharmal, PhD
  • Collapse
  • Expand
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 614 186 3
PDF Downloads 280 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0