The Community Resource in Targeted Therapies
Driving Knowledge. Empowering Change. Optimizing Outcomes.
ONCAlert | Upfront Therapy for mRCC

Overview of Merkel Cell Carcinoma

Melinda Yushak, MD, and Ragini Kudchadkar, MD
Published Online: Jan 02,2018

Ragini Kudchadkar, MD
Abstract

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare but potentially lethal skin cancer that has traditionally been treated with surgery, radiation, and in advanced cases, chemotherapy. Patients with even localized disease have a high risk of recurrence and those who develop metastatic disease have had a poor overall survival. Several factors have been associated with the development of MCC including immunosuppression, ultraviolet (UV) exposure, and infection with the Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV). Randomized-controlled trials are a paucity in this disease; therefore, historic treatment algorithms are mostly based on retrospective case series. Historically, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines have recommended participation in a clinical trial for patients with metastatic disease. If patients were not able to participate in or access a trial, then they would often receive a combination of platinum and etoposide chemotherapy. However, recent years have seen trials of immunotherapies showing benefit for patients with stage IV disease. In 2017, avelumab became the first immunotherapy to be approved for advanced stage MCC. This paper will summarize the basis of the current standard of care for this disease as well as review the new data for biomarkers and immunotherapy in advanced MCC.

Background

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive cutaneous malignancy with an estimated incidence in the United States of approximately 1600 cases per year. Unfortunately, the number of cases has been steadily increasing over the last few decades. Patients with stage I or II disease have a 5-year disease specific survival of 78% while those with stage III disease have only a 54%.1 The 5-year overall survival (OS) for patients with metastatic disease has historically averaged between 0% to 18%.2-5 There is a higher incidence of MCC in men and it predominantly affects those with lighter skin. MCC typically affects older individuals with the mean age for diagnosis of 74 years for men and 76 years for women.6 The risk of MCC is higher in immunosuppressed individuals such as those with a history of organ transplant, HIV, or other malignancy.

Due to the rarity of this disease, the data on natural history and treatment of MCC are lacking in quality; also, there are sparse data from clinical trials. The data are gathered primarily from retrospective case series, although a handful of randomized trials are available. This should be taken into account while reading this review.

Primary lesions of MCC generally appear as painless, rapidly growing, and nontender lesions. The color can vary from flesh colored to red or bluish. The most common sites are in sun-exposed areas with 43% occurring in the head and neck area.7 Diagnosis of MCC requires a high index of suspicion. The acronym AEIOU was developed to help identify clinical characteristics of lesions suggestive of MCC: asymptomatic, expanding rapidly, immune suppression, older than 50 years of age, and UV-exposed area in a fair-skinned individual.8 Traditionally, MCC is thought to arise from Merkel cells located in the basal layer of the dermis. However, there are alternative hypotheses regarding the cell of origin. On immunohistochemistry examination, MCC expresses both epithelial and neuroendocrine markers. CK20 is consistently positive with a paranuclear staining pattern.

Several factors have been associated with the development of MCC including immunosuppression, UV exposure, and infection with the Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV). MCPyV is a ubiquitous double stranded DNA virus. Approximately 88% of older individuals with MCC will have positive antibody titers specific to the capsid viral protein 1.9 The virus is present at tumor initiation and the viral proteins are felt to be oncogenic drivers. There is a subset of MCCs with low or absent MCPyV antigen expression. These tumors are felt to be related more to UV exposure and have higher rates of mutations in tumor suppressor genes such as TP53 and RB1.10,11 The increase in mutational burden is felt to increase expression of neoantigens and immunogenicity.

Systemic Therapy Options

Historically, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines have recommended participation in a clinical trial for patients with metastatic disease. If patients were not able to participate in or access a trial, then they would often receive a combination of platinum-based chemotherapy and etoposide in the first-line setting. MCC is a chemosensitive disease with response rates of 51% to 63% with chemotherapy.3,5,12-14 However, these responses are short in duration with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 94 days. Additionally, chemotherapy has not demonstrated an improvement in OS.14 Given the older age of many patients and their comorbidities, the toxicity of treatment could severely impact quality of life. However, until recently the majority of patients were treated with chemotherapy.

In March 2017, the FDA approved avelumab, a programmed death receptor ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor. Approval was based on the results of a phase II study that enrolled 88 patients. All patients had progressed on first-line chemotherapy. They were treated with avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The objective response rate (ORR) was 32% with a complete response rate (CRC) of 9%. Ten percent of patients had stable disease. Median PFS was 2.7 months and median OS was 11.3 months. The duration of response was greater than or equal to 6 months in 86% of patients. Treatment was overall well tolerated with no grade 4 or 5 toxicities and only 4.5% of the patients experienced grade 3 toxicities. Most common toxicities included fatigue and infusion reactions. Additionally, responses were seen regardless of PD-L1 expression or polyomavirus status.15

Although not yet approved at the writing of this article, the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab has shown promise in clinical trials. A phase II study of pembrolizumab enrolled 25 patients. Patients had distant metastatic or recurrent locoregional disease that was not amenable to surgery or radiation. Patients could not have received prior systemic therapy for advanced disease. An objective response rate was 56% with 4 patients achieving a CR and 10 patients out of 25 achieving a partial response. Twelve of the 14 patients with a response had an ongoing response at follow-up with a median follow-up of 33 weeks. Toxicity was similar to other trials and disease types with pembrolizumab; 4 of 25 patients had grade 3-4 toxicity, including 1 case of myocarditis from supplement of this article.16 

The approval of avelumab and promising results seen in a clinical trial with pembrolizumab will dramatically shift the way patients are treated as part of standard of care. Although it is still too early for long- term survival data, the information available demonstrates that these responses are more durable than those obtained with chemotherapy. Additionally, responses are seen in both virus positive and negative tumors with expected rates of toxicity.  Although not yet approved in the first-line setting immunotherapy is poised to replace chemotherapy as standard treatment. 

Adjuvant Standards and Future Directions

Surgery is the primary treatment modality for localized disease. Surgical margins of 1 to 2 cm are the standard of care for excision of the primary lesion. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is recommended prior to excision and is important in staging patients. One third of early stage patients have been documented to have sentinel lymph node (SLN) micrometasteses.4 In patients with SLNB, the nodal basin can be observed or radiation can be considered in high-risk patients. If a positive SLN has been identified, patients are recommended to be discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board about both nodal dissection and adjuvant radiation. MCC is notable for a high-risk of recurrence of up to 56% in SLNB-positive patients and 39% on SLNB-negative patients. Radiation is often used in the adjuvant setting to minimize locoregional recurrence. A meta-analysis showed a lowered rate of regional recurrence with radiotherapy (RT) when compared with surgery alone.17 In patients with no lymph node involvement there is an improvement in OS. However, this has not been demonstrated in lymph node-positive disease.18

MCC is a chemosensitive disease in the metastatic setting. However, there are no prospective trials showing a benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. A retrospective review of 4815 patients with MCC of the head and neck showed an improvement in survival with adjuvant RT and chemo-radiotherapy. However, adjuvant chemotherapy alone had a worse OS compared with surgery alone.19 Given the retrospective nature of this paper, it is difficult to make conclusions as treating physicians likely would choose to give adjuvant chemotherapy in the younger, healthier patients. National Cancer Database review of 6908 patients did not show an improvement or worsening of OS with chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.18 It should be noted that there are no high-quality randomized studies with chemotherapy and/or radiation in this disease. Neither has been prospectively shown to improve survival. Because of this fact, it is very difficult to know the true benefit or lack of benefit these interventions have on MCC.

Given the high risk of recurrent disease and the promise of immune checkpoint blockade in the metastatic setting, several trials are ongoing looking at both neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment for MCC. NCT02196961 is an adjuvant trial for resected Merkel cell that administers 4 doses of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg vs. observation. Additionally, nivolumab is being given in the neoadjuvant setting prior to resection (NCT02488759). Studies with avelumab are currently in development as well. Results are not yet available, but are anxiously awaited given the high risk of recurrence in patients.

Biomarkers

The prognosis of patients diagnosed with MCC is currently based on TNM staging. Intratumoral CD8 positivity may play an additional role in determining prognosis at diagnosis for this immunogenic malignancy. CD8+ lymphocytes mediate antiviral immune responses. One hundred and thirty-seven MCC cases were classified based on the presence of intra-tumoral CD8. Samples were categorized as having absent, low, or moderate/strong CD8 expression. Intra-tumoral CD8+ presence was found to have a direct correlation with MCC-specific survival. A similar trend was found for OS, but was not statistically significant.20

Patients who undergo resection of MCC have a high risk of recurrence. Current surveillance recommendations are for periodic imaging with no clear scientifically defined frequency. However, in patients who have developed a positive antibody titer to the MCPyV oncoprotein, recent research has shown promise for detecting recurrence based on monitoring of the antibody titers. In a cohort of 219 prospectively followed patients, an increase in oncoprotein antibody titers were associated with an increase in disease recurrence. Among seropositive patients, an increase in oncoprotein titer had a positive predictive value of 66% while a decrease had a negative predictive value of 97%.21 This represents a promising new tool for monitoring recurrence in high-risk patients. It should be noted that is a single institution study and much additional research is needed to define the optimal screening using both a combination of imaging and antibody titers.

Although immunotherapy represents an improvement in treatment options for patients with metastatic disease, not everybody responds to therapy. Several exploratory biomarker analyses have investigated patterns of response. An exploratory biomarker analysis of the phase II trial that led to the approval of avelumab looked at the role of tumor PD-L1 expression. An ORR of 34.5% was found in PD-L1–positive versus only 18.8% in PDL-1–negative patients at the 1% expression level cutoff. At the 5% expression level cutoff 52.6% of PD-L1 positive patients and 23.6% of PD-L1 negative patients had an overall response. Additionally, 26.1% of patients with MCPyV–positive tumors compared with 35.5% in MCPyV–negative tumors had a response. When high versus low CD8+ baseline T cell density at the margin was compared, the ORR was 44.4% versus 19.2% respectively.22 In the trial of patients receiving first-line treatment with pembrolizumab, 62% of patients who responded had virus-positive tumors while 44% had virus-negative tumors.16

Summary

MCC is a rare and aggressive malignancy. Patients with localized disease have a high risk of recurrence and those who develop metastatic disease have a poor OS. In recent years much has been learned about the roles that MCPyV and mutational burden play in the pathogenesis of the disease. This has translated into potential options for monitoring high-risk patients with antibody titers though further study is needed. 

In patients who have metastatic disease the approval of avelumab in the second-line setting and the results of a trial with pembrolizumab in the first-line setting represent important developments in treatment of this deadly disease. Results from the neoadjuvant and adjuvant trials are anxiously awaited.  Future research for MCC should concentrate on prospective, randomized data to give clinicians and patients a better sense of the impact of treatment on this uncommon but potentially lethal disease.
 
References
  1. Fitzgerald TL, Dennis S, Kachare SD, Vohra NA, Wong JH, Zervos EE. Dramatic increase in the incidence and mortality from Merkel cell carcinoma in the United States. Am Surg. 2015;81(8):802-806.
  2. Allen PJ, Bowne WB, Jaques DP, Brennan MF, Busam K, Coit DG. Merkel cell carcinoma: prognosis and treatment of patients from a single institution. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(10):2300-2309. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.329.
  3. Tai PT, Yu E, Winquist E, et al. Chemotherapy in neuroendocrine/Merkel cell carcinoma of the skin: case series and review of 204 cases. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(12):2493-2499. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.12.2493.
  4. Santamaria-Barria JA, Boland GM, Yeap BY, Nardi V, Dias-Santagata D, Cusack JC Jr. Merkel cell carcinoma: 30-year experience from a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(4):1365-1373. doi: 10.1245/s10434012-2779-3.
  5. Voog E, Biron P, Martin JP, Blay JY. Chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;85(12):2589-2595.
  6. Albores-Saavedra J, Batich K, Chable-Montero F, Sagy N, Schwartz AM, Henson DE. Merkel cell carcinoma demographics, morphology, and survival based on 3870 cases: a population based study. J Cutan Pathol. 2010;37(1):20-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0560.2009.01370.x.
  7. Harms KL, Healy MA, Nghiem P, et al. Analysis of prognostic factors from 9387 Merkel cell carcinoma cases forms the basis for the new 8th edition AJCC staging system. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3564-3571. doi: 10.1245/ s10434-016-5266-4.
  8. Heath M, Jaimes N, Lemos B, et al. Clinical characteristics of Merkel cell carcinoma at diagnosis in 195 patients: the “AEIOU” features. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;58(3):375-381. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.11.020.
  9. Carter JJ, Paulson KG, Wipf GC, et al. Association of Merkel cell polyomavirus-specific antibodies with Merkel cell carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(21):1510-1522. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp332.
  10. Harms PW, Patel RM, Verhaegen ME, et al. Distinct gene expression profiles of viral- and nonviral-associated merkel cell carcinoma revealed by transcriptome analysis. J Invest Dermatol. 2013;133(4):936-945. doi: 10.1038/jid.2012.445.
  11. Erstad DJ, Jr JC. Mutational analysis of merkel cell carcinoma. Cancers (Basel). 2014;6(4):2116-2136. doi: 10.3390/cancers6042116.
  12. Iyer JG, Blom A, Doumani R, et al. Response rates and durability of chemotherapy among 62 patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. Cancer Med. 2016, 10.1002/cam4.815.
  13. Sharma D, Flora G, Grunberg SM. Chemotherapy of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: case report and review of the literature. Am J Clin Oncol. 1991;14(2):166-169.
  14. Satpute SR, Ammakkanavar NR, Einhorn LH. Role of platinum-based chemotherapy for Merkel cell tumor in adjuvant and metastatic settings. Proc Am Soc Clin. 2014;32(suppl 5S; abstr 9049).
  15. Kaufman HL, Russell J, Hamid O, et al. Avelumab in patients with chemotherapyrefractory metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: a multicentre, single-group, openlabel, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Oct;17(10):1374-1385.
  16. Nghiem P, Bhatia S, Lipson EJ, et al. PD-1 blockade with pembrolizumab in advanced Merkel-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(26):2542-2552. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603702.
  17. Lewis KG, Weinstock MA, Weaver AL, Otley CC. Adjuvant local irradiation for Merkel cell carcinoma. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(6):693-700. doi: 10.1001/ archderm.142.6.693.
  18. 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 Data Base. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(9). doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw042.
  19. Chen MM, Roman SA, Sosa JA, Judson BL. The role of adjuvant therapy in the management of head and neck merkel cell carcinoma: an analysis of 4815 patients. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;141(2):137-141. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2014.3052.
  20. Paulson KG, Iyer JG, Simonson WT, et al. CD8+ lymphocyte intratumoral infiltration as a stage-independent predictor of Merkel cell carcinoma survival. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(suppl; abstr 9557).
  21. Paulson KG, Lewis CW, Redman MW, et al. Viral oncoprotein antibodies as a marker for recurrence of Merkel cell carcinoma: a prospective validation study. Cancer. 2017;123(8):1464-1474. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30475.
  22. Shapiro I, Grote HJ, D’Urso V, et al. Exploratory biomarker analysis in avelumab-treated patients with Merkel cell carcinoma progressed after chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 35, 2017 (suppl; abstr 9557).



Clinical Articles

Overview of Merkel Cell Carcinoma
Copyright © TargetedOnc 2018 Intellisphere, LLC. All Rights Reserved.