Secondary Logo

New perspectives in Merkel cell carcinoma

del Marmol, Véroniquea; Lebbé, Celesteb

doi: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000508
MELANOMA AND OTHER SKIN NEOPLASMS: Edited by Véronique del Marmol

Purpose of review Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), a rapidly progressing skin cancer, has poor prognosis. We reviewed the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of MCC, with a focus on recent therapeutic advancements.

Recent findings Risk factors for MCC, such as old age, immunosuppression, polyomavirus infection and exposure to UV radiation have already been identified, but the underlying mechanisms leading to carcinogenesis still need clarification. On the basis of recent advances, immunotherapy – in particular, inhibition targeting the programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD1)/PDL1) immune checkpoint blockade – is currently being investigated in the treatment of metastatic MCC. Avelumab, an anti-PDL1 antibody, was the first drug to be approved internationally as second-line monotherapy for patients with advanced MCC, based on results from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 clinical trial. Avelumab has also recently been approved as first-line treatment for advanced MCC in Europe. Pembrolizumab (anti-PD1) in first-line and nivolumab (anti-PD1) in first-line and second-line treatments are two other checkpoint inhibitors that are under investigation, and showing promising results. New innovative therapies are also in development.

Summary New insights concerning advances in MCC diagnosis and treatment have been highlighted. Immunotherapy for metastatic MCC constitutes a recent breakthrough in an unmet medical need, but alternative therapies should continue to be investigated.

aDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Hopital Erasme-Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

bAPHP, Department of Dermatology, Saint-Louis Hospital, Sorbonne Paris Cité Université, Paris Diderot, INSERM U976, Paris, France

Correspondence to Professor Véronique del Marmol, MD, PhD, Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Hopital Erasme Université Libre de Bruxelles 808, Route de Lennik, 1070 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2 5554612; e-mail:

Back to Top | Article Outline


Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a neuroendocrine neoplasia formerly called ‘trabecular carcinoma of the skin’ but then renamed following the observation that tumor cells closely resemble Merkel cells. Merkel cells are reliably identified through the expression of several markers, such as cytokeratin (CK) 8, 18 and 20, mechanosensitive ion channels, neuropeptides and presynaptic machinery components [1]. MCC cells express the same markers, and the development of immunostaining techniques has improved disease identification [2▪▪].

Although rare, MCC is a rapidly progressing disease and until recently, available therapeutic approaches led to poor prognosis, with 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of only 40% [3]. This article reviews current knowledge on MCC and its treatment, with a focus on recent advancements.

Box 1

Box 1

Back to Top | Article Outline


MCC is a relatively rare disease, roughly 50 times less frequent than melanoma, with reported incidences of 0.6 cases/100 000 person-years in the United States (US), 1.6/100 000 in Australia and 0.3/100 000 in Sweden, between 2006 and 2012 [4▪▪]. However, an ascending trend over time was noted for several countries [5▪]; for instance, in the United States, an increase of 95% in the number of MCC cases was reported during 2000–2013, leading to an incidence of 0.7/100 000 person-years in 2013, with further escalation predicted by 2025 [6▪]. The observed increase in incidence is best explained by the improvements in the diagnosis techniques used (particularly, the use of CK-20 immunohistochemistry), but might be also paralleling ageing of the global population, as the disease is more frequent in the elderly.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The main cause of MCC, accounting for more than 80% of cases, is a mutated form of the Merkel cell polyoma virus (MCPyV). The virus is widely spread among the general population, and a recent study evaluating seroprevalence of human polyomaviruses in blood donors showed an overall prevalence of 81.9% for MCPyV [7]. Moreover, MCPyV DNA was previously identified in around 3% of tested serum samples from 196 healthy blood donors [8▪▪], suggesting the possibility that transfusion is a way of infection. The nonmutated form of the virus is, nevertheless, innocuous and infection does not cause any symptoms in healthy individuals.

MCPyV-positive (MCPyV+) MCC tumors consistently express two major viral proteins, the large T (LT) and small T (ST) antigens. MCPyV is considered as an MCC trigger in most cases and is clearly associated with the disease. The underlying mechanism is still under investigation, but considerable advances have been made over the last 2 years. Co-expression of ST and the atonal basic helix–loop–helix transcription factor 1 (ATOH-1) was shown to lead to the growth of epidermis-derived MCC-like tumors in mice [9▪]. Epigenetic deregulation mediated by polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) was also linked to the pathogenesis of MCPyV+ MCC, by investigating immunohistochemical expression of the H3K27me3 marker [10]. Binding of ST to the MYC homolog MYCL and the EP400 histone acetyltransferase and chromatin remodeling complex was also shown to activate gene expression, which contributes to MCC-tumorigenesis [11]. MCPyV ST expression enhances cell dissociation, through a process, which implicates the cellular sheddases (A disintegrin and metalloproteinase 10 and 17 proteins) in cellular transformation and metastasis [12]. Cellular chloride channels [13] and Rho-GTPase-induced filopodium formation [14] have also been shown to be upregulated by MCPyV ST and contribute to cell motility. Other findings suggest that MCPyV survives in the host by impairing the innate immune response through binding of ST to nuclear factor kappa B transcriptors, involving an interaction between ST and the regulatory sub-unit 1 of protein phosphatase4 [15].

For MCPyV-negative (MCPyV−) MCC, incidence is strongly associated with ultraviolet (UV) exposure, but an increased somatic UV-mediated mutation rate is needed to reach oncogenesis of the same severity as that driven by MCPyV positivity [16▪]. In Australia, the country with the highest incidence of the disease, most MCCs are in fact MCPyV− [5▪], indicating UV radiation mutagenesis as the etiologic factor for MCC. MCPyV− MCC can be reliably detected by immunostaining with an anti-CM2B4 antibody and has been shown to have a higher risk of progression and death compared with MCPyV+ MCC [17].

Regardless of MCC cause, the cellular origin of the tumor remains unknown. Although the involvement of Merkel cell precursors has been proposed [4▪▪], the Merkel cells themselves are unlikely candidates, as they do not undergo cell division and MCC cells are highly dividing cells. Moreover, many molecular markers are expressed differently in Merkel cells and MCC cells, and many markers expressed by tumor cells are not expressed by Merkel cells [18▪▪]. Following an analysis of genetic and virology studies up to date, Sunshine et al. [18▪▪] suggested that MCPyV+ and MCPyV− MCC cells might have different origin, with the former deriving from dermal fibroblast and the latter from epidermal keratinocytes.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Advanced age is associated with an increased risk of developing MCC, and the mean age at diagnosis is over 73 years in both women and men [19]. MCC in pediatric patients and young adults is extremely rare. A retrospective study in the United States covering 27 105 incident MCC cases between 2001 and 2015 estimated that not only 0.07% of patients were aged less than 30 years but also pointed out that the disease is more likely to be diagnosed at advanced stages in pediatric and young adult patients [20].

MCC has previously been reported as more frequent in men, although sex-specific incidences tend to vary from one region to another and over time, as shown by an analysis of 11 576 MCC cases from 20 countries covering the 1990–2007 time period [5▪]. A recent registry-based study in France showed that 56.9% of cases occurred in women [21].

Individuals with white skin pigmentation, sustained exposure to sun or UV light or history of other skin cancers [4▪▪] are at higher risk of MCC. Immunodeficiency has also long been identified as a risk factor for MCC [2▪▪,4▪▪]. Recent reports have shown that individuals with a history of chronic inflammatory disorders [22▪] and organ transplant recipients [23▪,24,25] are at higher risk of MCC.

Back to Top | Article Outline


MCC presents as a painless, rapidly growing, solitary, firm nodule or plaque that is red – pink or blue – violaceous in color. The most frequent locations for the primary tumor are the head and neck in more than 50% of cases [26,27], followed by the lower limbs and upper extremities, together accounting for more than 80% of the tumors, in body regions exposed to UV light [28]. The trunk [29], the eyelid [30,31▪▪] and oral/genital mucosa [32,33] are also possible sites, albeit rarely reported, in less than 16% of patients, whereas in up to 15% of cases, the primary lesion is not identified [28]. Although MCC typically involves the dermis, rare instances of strictly intraepidermal tumors have also been reported [34,35] and a recent case of pure nodal MCC has recently been described [36]. Laterality has been previously reported in MCC and a recent study in German patients found a statistically significant left-side localization of tumors, underlining that the explanation of this finding likely goes beyond asymmetrical UV exposure [37].

The ‘AEIOU’ acronym was developed by Heath et al. and is frequently used in the diagnosis of MCC. It stands for the clinical features: asymptomatic/lack of tenderness, expanding rapidly, immune suppression, older than 50 years and UV-exposed/fair skin. Virtually all cases of MCC present with at least three of these features [28].

Back to Top | Article Outline


In clinical practice, sufficient diagnosis of MCC relies on a characteristic histopathological analysis of a biopsy sample with a positive result for CK-20 immunostaining and negative for TTF-1, in order to differentiate the tumor from other neoplasms and cancer types [2▪▪,38] (Table 1). However, CK-20 expression has been previously reported to be negative in 5–10% of MCC cases. Neurofilament expression has recently been proposed as a superior differentiator between MCC and small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas, with neurofilament and CK-20 specificity of 96.7 and 59.0%, respectively, in discriminating between the two tumor types [39]. Diffuse CD56 expression and patchy CK-5/6 positivity can also be used to differentiate MCC from basal cell carcinoma [40]. Special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2, neurofilament and MCPyV DNA detection have been recently proposed as sensitive additional markers for MCC diagnosis, allowing to distinguish CK20-negative MCC from other neuroendocrine cancers [41▪▪]. Positivity for MCPyV can also be determined with specific markers against LT and ST antigens. The use of other markers continues to be investigated [10,13,29,42–50].

Table 1

Table 1

Complete skin and lymph nodal clinical examination, together with hematoxylin and eosin staining of tumor samples and a full immunopanel are recommended prior to diagnosis, whereas imaging studies are required postdiagnosis [2▪▪].

Knowledge of the morphology of MCC tumors by other noninvasive methods, such as nonreflectance confocal microscopy [51▪], dermoscopy [52▪] and ultrasound [53] continues to be improved.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Age over 60 years, male sex, head/neck localization of the primary tumor, disease stage at diagnosis have already been established as being associated with worse MCC outcomes [4▪▪,19,54,55▪▪] and these data continue to be confirmed by recent reports. Table 2 summarizes large retrospective and prospective studies conducted in real-world settings, published within the last 2 years and reporting on MCC outcomes and prognostic factors.

Table 2

Table 2

Table 2

Table 2

Table 2

Table 2

As expected, OS rates in MCC patients depend on the size of the primary tumor at diagnosis: 5-year OS rates of 55.8, 41.1 and 31.8% have been reported for T1 (≤2 cm), T2/T3 (>2 to ≤5 cm/>5 cm) and T4 (primary tumor invading fascia, muscle, cartilage or bone) categories, respectively [87▪▪]. This analysis was carried out in 9000 patients and constituted the basis of the new American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. The new system requires clinical or pathological designation, as the diagnosis type leads to differences in predicted MCC recurrence and survival. Patients with nodal disease but unknown primary tumor are also staged differently from those with visible primary tumors. According to the current stages, stages I (tumor ≤2 cm), IIA (tumor >2 cm) and IIB (tumor invading bone, muscle, fascia or cartilage) have no nodal disease or distant metastasis. Stages III, IIIA (which distinguishes pathologically unknown/known primary tumors) and IIIB require the presence of positive node, but involve no distant metastasis, whereas stage IV includes distant metastases with or without regional node involvement [88]. The potential value of novel imaging techniques in the diagnosis and staging of MCC continues to be evaluated. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) can be improved with better preoperative imaging techniques. A recent study comparing the routinely used planar lymphoscintigraphy to single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) has shown the latter to allow the identification of additional hot spots in almost 50% of patients with cutaneous malignancies. However, in 6.8% of patients, additional spots not identified in SPECT/CT were detected by lymphoscintigraphy, suggesting that the two techniques should be used together [89]. In a prospective study conducted in Australia, fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET (18-FDG PET)/CT was recently shown to have high sensitivity and specificity in the staging of MCC. Pretreatment staging influenced treatment decision by allowing for the upstaging of the disease in 25.9% of MCC patients [90]. 68-Ga-somatostatin analog PET/CT has been shown to have a similar diagnosis performance [91]. 18-FDG PET/CT has also been used to monitor response of metastatic MMC to immunotherapy [92].

Immunosuppression is also associated with decreased survival in MCC patients [93] and a recent study also showed that the type of immunosuppression (chronic lymphocytic leukemia, other hematologic malignancies, solid organ transplant, autoimmune disease and HIV-acquired deficiency syndrome) leads to significantly different MCC-specific survival and OS [58▪▪].

Back to Top | Article Outline


Surgery remains the first therapeutic option in the treatment of primary tumors, with recommended resection margins of 1–2 cm [94▪]. Mohs micrographic surgery is also performed and has been shown to be noninferior to wide local excision in several recent studies [77,79,80]. Adjuvant radiotherapy is also indicated (50 Gy and >10 Gy on tumor bed) [4▪▪,38], with the radiation dose impacting the OS of MCC patients [74,75▪▪,95]. When surgical resection is not feasible, definitive radiotherapy can be used as an alternative first-line treatment of MCC, and 5-year OS rates of 40% have been reported with this technique [96]. However, the use of radiotherapy alone has recently been shown to have poorer outcomes than the standard-of-care surgical intervention, with the surgery improving median and even long-term survival compared with radiotherapy alone. In a retrospective study conducted in 2454 MCC patients in the United States, who received either surgery or radiotherapy as primary treatment, stage I/II disease patients who underwent surgery showed median OS of 76 months (versus 25 months in those under radiotherapy). In stage III patients, median OS was 30 and 15 months in the surgery and radiotherapy groups, respectively [85]. Of note, immunosuppressed patients have a lower response to radiotherapy compared with immunocompetent MCC patients, as shown by significantly inferior recurrence-free survival (2-year: 30% in immunosuppressed versus 57% in immunocompetent; 5-year: 29 versus 48%), higher rates of local recurrence (2-year: 25 versus 12%; 5-year: 27 versus 13%) and lower OS (2-year: 53 versus 82%; 5-year: 38 versus 63%) [81▪▪]. A recent systematic review evaluating radiotherapy treatment for inoperable MCC tumors concluded that adjuvant doses of 50–55 Gy might be optimal for head/neck tumors [95]. Other recent studies reporting on the predictive value of therapeutic options in MCC are included in Table 2 .

Determining the degree/extent of lymph node disease in MCC patient is crucial. The most important independent predictor of distant involvement in MCC is lymph node status [2▪▪]; therefore, after histological diagnosis, SLNB is recommended in the management of all MCC patients to identify subclinical nodal extension [88]. SLN positivity is reported for 30–38% of MCC tumors, but results of studies evaluating the prognostic value of SLN are still conflicting [2▪▪], with a recent study indicating no statistical differences in the disease-free survival of SLN-positive and SLN-negative patients [78▪].

Clinically positive nodes should also be managed with a combination of surgical interventions and radiotherapy of the primary tumor, followed by therapeutic lymph node dissection. As the benefit of lymph node area radiotherapy is considered to be limited to local disease control, this approach should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Enrollment of patients in clinical trials is strongly recommended [2▪▪,38].

Unresectable metastatic MCC had no established curative treatment until recently. Chemotherapy (most often a combination of cisplatin and etoposide) or monotherapies using anthracyclines, liposomal anthracyclines or etoposide are recommended, along with best supportive care and strong support towards clinical trials assessing immunotherapeutic and targeted therapy approaches [38]. However, as real-world evidence continues to accumulate, it indicates that metastatic MCC tumor response to chemotherapy as first-line or second-line treatment is transient. In a systematic literature review, Nghiem et al. [97▪] report objective response rates (ORRs) of 20–61% after chemotherapy, with improved outcomes in first-line versus second-line settings, and a duration of response (DOR) of 8 months or less among responders. In a retrospective European study including immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients having received at least two lines of therapy, an ORR of 8.8% and median DOR of 1.9 months were observed; these outcomes were improved when only the immunocompetent population was considered [56].

The poor outcomes observed with chemotherapy reflect a medical need for metastatic MCC patients. Over the last decade, immunotherapy emerged as a viable therapeutic alternative for MCC, as a direct conclusion of several lines of evidence. First, the association between immunosuppression and poorer disease prognosis lead to the identification of MCC as an immunogenic cancer. Second, early observations that patients with high CD8 T-cell infiltration into MCC tumors had improved outcomes compared with those with sparse infiltration (100 versus 60% MCC-specific survival) suggested a potential role of CD8 T cells in the tumor environment [98]. Third, the presence of MCPyV-specific CD8 T cells and MCC-infiltrating lymphocytes were later correlated with expression of programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) [99]. Fourth, MCPyV-negative MCCs also harbor more tumor neoantigens than other types of cancer for which therapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have been approved, such as melanoma or nonsmall cell lung cancers [100▪▪]. Taken together, these findings suggested that increased immune function would favor positive MCC outcomes and that therapies targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1)/PD-L1 immune checkpoint blockade would be effective in the treatment of the disease.

Several CPIs have been evaluated in clinical trials for treatment of MCC. The rapid advances in this field over the last decade culminated with the approval of avelumab, a human IgG1 anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, for use as second-line treatment of metastatic MCC in individuals 12 years of age or older in the United States [101] and adults in Europe [102]. Avelumab also received a marketing authorization in Australia in 2018 [103] and in Japan. Approval was based on the results of an open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase II clinical trial (JAVELIN Merkel 200, NCT02155647), in which 88 adult patients with metastatic MCC previously treated with chemotherapy received 10 mg/kg avelumab intravenously every 2 weeks [104▪▪]. After at least 1 year of follow-up, ORRs were 33.0%, with 11.4 and 21.6% of patients achieving complete and partial responses, respectively. Median OS was 12.9 months [105▪▪], exceeding by far historical OS outcomes achieved with other second-line therapies (Table 3). Metastatic MCC nonprogression following treatment with avelumab was associated with improved health-related quality of life [106▪▪]. Avelumab is also currently being evaluated in first-line settings, in a multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial (JAVELIN 200 Merkel part B) in MCC patients, receiving 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression and results from an interim analysis are available [107▪▪]. Over a median follow-up of 5.1 months, the ORR was 62.1%, and treatment was generally well tolerated [107▪▪]. The study is still ongoing.

Table 3

Table 3

Another CPI, the humanized IgG4 anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab, was also evaluated as first-line treatment in a single-arm, multicenter, phase II, single-arm study (NCT02267603), in which 26 patients with metastatic MCC received 2 mg/kg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks [108▪▪]. Over a median follow-up of 8.3 months, the ORR was 56% and increased to 62% in patients with MCPyV-positive MCC and the DOR ranged from 2.2 to 9.7 months [108▪▪] (Table 3). An additional assessment in this study showed that tumors from patients responding to pembrolizumab treatment showed higher densities of PD1 and PDL1-expressing cells when compared with nonresponders, whereas no significant correlation between CD8 T-cell density and clinical response was observed [110▪▪]. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendations currently include the use of pembrolizumab as a systemic therapy option in patients with metastatic MCC [2▪▪].

Nivolumab, a human IgG4 anti-PD1 antibody, also shows clinical activity in MCC patients. In an open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase I/II study (CheckMate358, NCT02488759), among 25 patients with metastatic MCC who received 240 mg/kg nivolumab, the ORR was 68% over 6.5 months of follow-up with higher responses observed in treatment-naïve than in previously treated MCC patients. The 3-month progression-free survival and OS rates were high and treatment was well tolerated [109] (Table 3). The study is ongoing and includes cohorts in which the antibody is administered in combination with other therapies.

More than 20 clinical trials investigating immunotherapy alone or in combination with other therapies are ongoing on, in recruiting phase, and are evaluating several immunotherapeutic agents, which could eventually constitute a viable, decisive option in the treatment of MCC. A pilot study assessing the intratumoral administration of G100 – a toll-like receptor 4 – with or without surgery/radiation therapy, has already shown promising results in both neoadjuvant and metastatic settings [111]. Talimogene laherparepvec has already received an indication for advanced melanoma and is currently evaluated for MCC in clinical trial settings (NCT02819843). However, its use as first-line therapy for surgically incurable MCC has recently been reported. Intratumorally administered talimogene laherparepvec led to a regression of tumors and prevented new locoregional and distant metastasis for 6–11 months [112]. In a phase I clinical trial evaluating utomilumab (an agonistic monoclonal antibody), an overall ORR of 13.3% was observed in patients with MCC, including a complete and a partial response [113▪]. However, carbozantinib did not show any activity and was poorly tolerated by patients with platinum failure, recurrent/metastatic MCC [114].

Recent studies also propose activated protein kinase Cε [115], tropomyosin receptor kinase A [49], indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1, tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase 2 and aryl hydrocarbon receptor expression [116], or CCL17/TARC and its receptor CCR4 [47], vascular endothelial growth factor A inhibition [117] or blockade of CD33 [118▪] as potential targets of future therapeutic strategies.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The treatment of MCC, a rare but severe and aggressive disease, is complicated by immunosuppression and poor response to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. However, knowledge continues to accumulate on immunohistochemical and molecular markers associated with MCC, and recent advances in imaging techniques facilitate diagnosis and identification of factors with predictive value for the disease outcome. The development of anti-PD1 and anti-PDL1 immunotherapeutics, leading to the approval of avelumab for treatment of metastatic MCC in several countries, represents a breakthrough in the field and begins to cover an unmet medical need. Nevertheless, alternative therapies are still needed for patients not responding to currently approved treatment options and future trials should consider administration of CPIs in combination/sequence with chemotherapy, immunotherapies or targeted therapies, as well as evaluation in adjuvant setting.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The authors thank Petronela M. Petrar, PhD (XPE Pharma & Science) for medical writing services.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Financial support and sponsorship

The development of this publication was financially supported by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, as part of an alliance between Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and Pfizer, Inc. New-York, through an independent medical writing grant. The views and opinions described in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the grantor.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

V.d.M. has been part of advisory board from Sanofi, MSD and received unrestricted educational grant from ABVIE, JANSSEN

C.L. has been part of advisory board from Sanofi, MSD, BMS, Roche, Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • ▪ of special interest
  • ▪▪ of outstanding interest
Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Ostrowski SM, Wright MC, Bolock AM, et al. Ectopic Atoh1 expression drives Merkel cell production in embryonic, postnatal and adult mouse epidermis. Development 2015; 142:2533–2544.
2▪▪. Bichakjian CK, Olencki T, Aasi SZ, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma, Version 1.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018; 16:742–774.

Important reference referring to NCCN guidelines.

3. Lemos BD, Storer BE, Iyer JG, et al. Pathologic nodal evaluation improves prognostic accuracy in Merkel cell carcinoma: analysis of 5823 cases as the basis of the first consensus staging system. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010; 63:751–761.
4▪▪. Becker JC, Stang A, DeCaprio JA, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2017; 3:17077.

Review of major importance.

5▪. Stang A, Becker JC, Nghiem P, et al. The association between geographic location and incidence of Merkel cell carcinoma in comparison to melanoma: an international assessment. Eur J Cancer 2018; 94:47–60.

Interesting epidemiological review.

6▪. Paulson KG, Park SY, Vandeven NA, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma: current US incidence and projected increases based on changing demographics. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; 78:457.e2–463.e2.

Interesting epidemiological review (US).

7. Kamminga S, van der Meijden E, Feltkamp MCW, et al. Seroprevalence of fourteen human polyomaviruses determined in blood donors. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0206273.
8▪▪. Mazzoni E, Rotondo JC, Marracino L, et al. Detection of Merkel cell polyomavirus dna in serum samples of healthy blood donors. Front Oncol 2017; 7:294.

Reference referring the viral polyomavirus seroprevalence of healthy individuals.

9▪. Verhaegen ME, Mangelberger D, Harms PW, et al. Merkel cell polyomavirus small T antigen initiates Merkel cell carcinoma-like tumor development in mice. Cancer Res 2017; 77:3151–3157.

Important reference on physiopathogeny.

10. Busam KJ, Pulitzer MP, Coit DC, et al. Reduced H3K27me3 expression in Merkel cell polyoma virus-positive tumors. Mod Pathol 2017; 30:877–883.
11. Cheng J, Park DE, Berrios C, et al. Merkel cell polyomavirus recruits MYCL to the EP400 complex to promote oncogenesis. PLoS Pathog 2017; 13:e1006668.
12. Nwogu N, Boyne JR, Dobson SJ, et al. Cellular sheddases are induced by Merkel cell polyomavirus small tumour antigen to mediate cell dissociation and invasiveness. PLoS Pathog 2018; 14:e1007276.
13. Stakaityte G, Nwogu N, Lippiat JD, et al. The cellular chloride channels CLIC1 and CLIC4 contribute to virus-mediated cell motility. J Biol Chem 2018; 293:4582–4590.
14. Stakaityte G, Nwogu N, Dobson SJ, et al. Merkel cell polyomavirus small T antigen drives cell motility via Rho-GTPase-induced filopodium formation. J Virol 2018; 92: pii: e00940-17.
15. Abdul-Sada H, Muller M, Mehta R, et al. The PP4R1 sub-unit of protein phosphatase PP4 is essential for inhibition of NF-kappaB by merkel polyomavirus small tumour antigen. Oncotarget 2017; 8:25418–25432.
16▪. Starrett GJ, Marcelus C, Cantalupo PG, et al. Merkel cell polyomavirus exhibits dominant control of the tumor genome and transcriptome in virus-associated Merkel cell carcinoma. MBio 2017; 8: pii: e02079-16. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02079-16.

Important reference on physiopathogenesis.

17. Moshiri AS, Doumani R, Yelistratova L, et al. Polyomavirus-negative Merkel cell carcinoma: a more aggressive subtype based on analysis of 282 cases using multimodal tumor virus detection. J Invest Dermatol 2017; 137:819–827.
18▪▪. Sunshine JC, Jahchan NS, Sage J, et al. Are there multiple cells of origin of Merkel cell carcinoma? Oncogene 2018; 37:1409–1416.

Review referring to the debate on Merkel cell carcinoma origin.

19. Amaral T, Leiter U, Garbe C. Merkel cell carcinoma: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and therapy. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 2017; 18:517–532.
20. Paulson KG, Nghiem P. One in a hundred million: Merkel cell carcinoma in pediatric and young adult patients is rare but more likely to present at advanced stages based on US registry data. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; pii: S0190-9622(18)32475-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.08.021. [Epub ahead of print].
21. Fondain M, Dereure O, Uhry Z, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma in France: a registries-based, comprehensive epidemiological survey. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2018; doi: 10.1111/jdv.14798. [Epub ahead of print].
22▪. Sahi H, Sihto H, Artama M, et al. History of chronic inflammatory disorders increases the risk of Merkel cell carcinoma, but does not correlate with Merkel cell polyomavirus infection. Br J Cancer 2017; 116:260–264.

First reference to biotherapy and Merkel cell risk.

23▪. 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.

Recent review of a major Merkel cell risk factor.

24. Mittal A, Colegio OR. Skin cancers in organ transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2017; 17:2509–2530.
25. Naldi L, Venturuzzo A, Invernizzi P. Dermatological complications after solid organ transplantation. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2018; 54:185–212.
26. Hughley BB, Schmalbach CE. Cutaneous head and neck malignancies in the elderly. Clin Geriatr Med 2018; 34:245–258.
27. Papadiochos I, Patrikidou A, Patsatsi A, et al. Head and neck Merkel cell carcinoma: a retrospective case series and critical literature review with emphasis on treatment and prognosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2018; 125:126–139.
28. 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; 58:375–381.
29. Alvarez-Arguelles ME, Melon S, Rojo S, et al. Detection and quantification of Merkel cell polyomavirus. Analysis of Merkel cell carcinoma cases from 1977 to 2015. J Med Virol 2017; 89:2224–2229.
30. Bostan C, de Souza MBD, Zoroquiain P, et al. Case series: Merkel cell carcinoma of the eyelid. Can J Ophthalmol 2017; 52:e182–e185.
31▪▪. Ford J, Thakar S, Thuro B, et al. Prognostic value of the staging system for eyelid tumors in the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 33:317–324.

Prognosis factor review and specific location diagnosis and AJCC staging.

32. Islam MN, Chehal H, Smith MH, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma of the buccal mucosa and lower lip. Head Neck Pathol 2018; 12:279–285.
33. Nguyen AH, Tahseen AI, Vaudreuil AM, et al. Clinical features and treatment of vulvar Merkel cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract 2017; 4:2.
34. Jour G, Aung PP, Rozas-Munoz E, et al. Intraepidermal Merkel cell carcinoma: a case series of a rare entity with clinical follow up. J Cutan Pathol 2017; 44:684–691.
35. McFalls J, Okon L, Cannon S, et al. Intraepidermal proliferation of Merkel cells within a seborrheic keratosis: Merkel cell carcinoma in situ or Merkel cell hyperplasia? J Cutan Pathol 2017; 44:480–485.
36. Siref A, Hendifar A, Balzer B. Primary visceral Merkel cell carcinoma: a case report and review of the literature. Am J Dermatopathol 2018; 40:927–929.
37. Gambichler T, Wieland U, Silling S, et al. Left-sided laterality of Merkel cell carcinoma in a German population: more than just sun exposure. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2017; 143:347–350.
38. Lebbe C, Becker JC, Grob JJ, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of Merkel Cell Carcinoma. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51:2396–2403.
39. Stanoszek LM, Chan MP, Palanisamy N, et al. Neurofilament is superior to cytokeratin 20 in supporting cutaneous origin for neuroendocrine carcinoma. Histopathology 2019; 74:504–513.
40. Panse G, McNiff JM, Ko CJ. Basal cell carcinoma: CD56 and cytokeratin 5/6 staining patterns in the differential diagnosis with Merkel cell carcinoma. J Cutan Pathol 2017; 44:553–556.
41▪▪. Kervarrec T, Tallet A, Miquelestorena-Standley E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a panel of immunohistochemical and molecular markers to distinguish Merkel cell carcinoma from other neuroendocrine carcinomas. Mod Pathol 2018; doi: 10.1038/s41379-018-0155-y. [Epub ahead of print].

Review of histologic marker helping for diagnosis accuracy.

42. Harms KL, Chubb H, Zhao L, et al. Increased expression of EZH2 in Merkel cell carcinoma is associated with disease progression and poorer prognosis. Hum Pathol 2017; 67:78–84.
43. Harms KL, Lazo de la Vega L, Hovelson DH, et al. Molecular profiling of multiple primary Merkel cell carcinoma to distinguish genetically distinct tumors from clonally related metastases. JAMA Dermatol 2017; 153:505–512.
44. Johansson B, Sahi H, Koljonen V, et al. The expression of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase and paired box gene 5 in Merkel cell carcinomas and its relation to the presence of Merkel cell polyomavirus DNA. J Cutan Pathol 2018; 46:26–32.
45. Konstatinell A, Coucheron DH, Sveinbjornsson B, et al. MicroRNAs as potential biomarkers in Merkel cell carcinoma. Int J Mol Sci 2018; 19: pii: E1873.
46. 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; 123:1464–1474.
47. Rasheed K, Abdulsalam I, Fismen S, et al. CCL17/TARC and CCR4 expression in Merkel cell carcinoma. Oncotarget 2018; 9:31432–31447.
48. Veija T, Koljonen V, Bohling T, et al. Aberrant expression of ALK and EZH2 in Merkel cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2017; 17:236.
49. Wehkamp U, Stern S, Kruger S, et al. Tropomyosin receptor kinase A expression on Merkel cell carcinoma cells. JAMA Dermatol 2017; 153:1166–1169.
50. Wehkamp U, Stern S, Kruger S, et al. Co-expression of NGF and PD-L1 on tumor-associated immune cells in the microenvironment of Merkel cell carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2018; doi: 10.1007/s00432-018-2657-x. [Epub ahead of print].
51▪. Longo C, Benati E, Borsari S, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma: morphologic aspects on reflectance confocal microscopy. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2017; 31:e480–e481.

First reference referring to confocal microscopy non invasive diagnostic criteria.

52▪. Geller S, Pulitzer M, Brady MS, et al. Dermoscopic assessment of vascular structures in solitary small pink lesions-differentiating between good and evil. Dermatol Pract Concept 2017; 7:47–50.

Reference to dermoscopical diagnostic criteria.

53. Hernandez-Aragues I, Vazquez-Osorio I, Alfageme F, et al. Skin ultrasound features of Merkel cell carcinoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2017; 31:e315–e318.
54. Barksdale SK. Advances in Merkel cell carcinoma from a pathologist's perspective. Pathology 2017; 49:568–574.
55▪▪. Coggshall K, Tello TL, North JP, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma: an update and review: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and staging. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; 78:433–442.

Review on pathogenesis, diagnosis and staging for clinicians.

56. Becker JC, Lorenz E, Ugurel S, et al. Evaluation of real-world treatment outcomes in patients with distant metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma following second-line chemotherapy in Europe. Oncotarget 2017; 8:79731–79741.
57. Bob A, Nielen F, Krediet J, et al. Tumor vascularization and clinicopathologic parameters as prognostic factors in merkel cell carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2017; 143:1999–2010.
58▪▪. 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 2018; 42:82–88.

Recent reference on prognosis and immunosuppression as risk factor.

59. Cowey CL, Mahnke L, Espirito J, et al. Real-world treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma treated with chemotherapy in the USA. Future Oncol 2017; 13:1699–1710.
60. Criscito MC, Martires KJ, Stein JA. A population-based cohort study on the association of dermatologist density and Merkel cell carcinoma survival. J Am Acad Dermatol 2017; 76:570–572.
61. Danino-Garcia M, Dominguez-Cruz JJ, Perez-Ruiz C, et al. Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of Merkel cell carcinoma in a series of 38 patients. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2018; pii: S0001-7310(18)30407-1. doi: 10.1016/ [Epub ahead of print].
    62▪. Dasanu CA, Del Rosario M, Codreanu I, et al. Inferior outcomes in immunocompromised Merkel cell carcinoma patients: can they be overcome by the use of PD1/PDL1 inhibitors? J Oncol Pharm Pract 2018; 25:214–216.

    Reference on Merkel cell carcinoma treatment for immunosuppressed patients.

    63. Ezaldein HH, Ventura A, DeRuyter NP, et al. Understanding the influence of patient demographics on disease severity, treatment strategy, and survival outcomes in merkel cell carcinoma: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end-results study. Oncoscience 2017; 4:106–114.
      64▪. Fiedler E, Vordermark D. Outcome of combined treatment of surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy in Merkel cell carcinoma. Acta Derm Venereol 2018; 98:699–703.

      Review on radiotherapy as therapeutical options.

      65. Fochtmann-Frana A, Haymerle G, Loewe R, et al. Incurable, progressive Merkel cell carcinoma: a single-institution study of 54 cases. Clin Otolaryngol 2018; 43:678–682.
      66. Han AY, Patel PB, Anderson M, et al. Adjuvant radiation therapy improves patient survival in early-stage Merkel cell carcinoma: a 15-year single-institution study. Laryngoscope 2018; 128:1862–1866.
      67▪▪. Harary M, Kavouridis VK, Thakuria M, et al. Predictors of survival in neurometastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 2018; 101:152–159.

      Update review of survival predictors.

      68. Haymerle G, Janik S, Fochtmann A, et al. Expression of Merkelcell polyomavirus (MCPyV) large T-antigen in Merkel cell carcinoma lymph node metastases predicts poor outcome. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0180426.
      69. Kervarrec T, Gaboriaud P, Berthon P, et al. Merkel cell carcinomas infiltrated with CD33(+) myeloid cells and CD8(+) T cells are associated with improved outcome. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; 78:973.e8–982.e8.
      70▪. Kieny A, Cribier B, Meyer N, et al. Epidemiology of Merkel cell carcinoma. A population-based study from 1985 to 2013, in northeastern of France. Int J Cancer 2018.


        71. Liu MA, Nguyen J, Driver JA. Influence of age and marital status on stage at diagnosis and survival of patients with Merkel cell carcinoma: a SEER based cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; 79:1146–1148.
        72. Madankumar R, Criscito MC, Martires KJ, et al. A population-based cohort study of the influence of socioeconomic factors and race on survival in Merkel cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 2017; 76:166–167.
        73. Miller NJ, Church CD, Dong L, et al. Tumor-infiltrating Merkel cell polyomavirus-specific T cells are diverse and associated with improved patient survival. Cancer Immunol Res 2017; 5:137–147.
        74. Patel SA, Qureshi MM, Mak KS, et al. Impact of total radiotherapy dose on survival for head and neck Merkel cell carcinoma after resection. Head Neck 2017; 39:1371–1377.
        75▪▪. Patel SA, Qureshi MM, Sahni D, et al. Identifying an optimal adjuvant radiotherapy dose for extremity and trunk Merkel cell carcinoma following resection: An analysis of the National Cancer Database. JAMA Dermatol 2017; 153:1007–1014.

        Reference on radiotherapy as adjuvant therapy.

        76. Rastrelli M, Ferrazzi B, Cavallin F, et al. Prognostic factors in Merkel cell carcinoma: a retrospective single-center study in 90 patients. Cancers (Basel) 2018; 10: pii: E350.
          77. Shaikh WR, Sobanko JF, Etzkorn JR, et al. Utilization patterns and survival outcomes after wide local excision or Mohs micrographic surgery for Merkel cell carcinoma in the United States, 2004-2009. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; 78:175.e3–177.e3.
          78▪. Sims JR, Grotz TE, Pockaj BA, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in Merkel cell carcinoma: the Mayo Clinic experience of 150 patients. Surg Oncol 2018; 27:11–17.

          Large cohort evaluating the role of sentinel node biopsy.

          79. Singh B, Qureshi MM, Truong MT, et al. Demographics and outcomes of stage I and II Merkel cell carcinoma treated with Mohs micrographic surgery compared with wide local excision in the National Cancer Database. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; 79:126.e3–134.e3.
          80. Su C, Bai HX, Christensen S. Relative survival analysis in patients with stage I-II Merkel cell carcinoma treated with Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; pii: S0190-9622(18)30816-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.04.057. [Epub ahead of print].
          81▪▪. 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; 102:330–339.

          Reference related to radiotherapy efficacy survival and immune status prognosis and immune status.

          82. van Veenendaal LM, van Akkooi ACJ, Verhoef C, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma: clinical outcome and prognostic factors in 351 patients. J Surg Oncol 2018; 117:1768–1775.
          83. Vandeven N, Lewis CW, Makarov V, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma patients presenting without a primary lesion have elevated markers of immunity, higher tumor mutation burden, and improved survival. Clin Cancer Res 2018; 24:963–971.
          84▪▪. Vargo JA, Ghareeb ER, Balasubramani GK, et al. RE: Adjuvant radiation therapy and chemotherapy in Merkel cell carcinoma: survival analyses of 6908 cases from the National Cancer Data Base. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017; 109:

            Large cohort survival analysis on adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

            85. Wright GP, Holtzman MP. Surgical resection improves median overall survival with marginal improvement in long-term survival when compared with definitive radiotherapy in Merkel cell carcinoma: a propensity score matched analysis of the National Cancer Database. Am J Surg 2018; 215:384–387.
            86. Yan L, Sun L, Guan Z, et al. Analysis of cutaneous Merkel Cell Carcinoma outcomes after different surgical interventions. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; pii: S0190-9622(18)32664-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.10.001. [Epub ahead of print].
              87▪▪. 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; 23:3564–3571.

              Staging and prognosis of a large cohort.

              88. Amin M, Edge S, Greene F, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. New York: Springer; 2017.
              89. Doepker MP, Yamamoto M, Applebaum MA, et al. Comparison of single-photon emission computed tomography-computed tomography (SPECT/CT) and conventional planar lymphoscintigraphy for sentinel node localization in patients with cutaneous malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24:355–361.
              90. Poulsen M, Macfarlane D, Veness M, et al. Prospective analysis of the utility of 18-FDG PET in Merkel cell carcinoma of the skin: a Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Study, TROG 09: 03. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2018; 62:412–419.
              91. Taralli S, Sollini M, Milella M, et al. (18)F-FDG and (68)Ga-somatostatin analogs PET/CT in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma: a comparison study. EJNMMI Res 2018; 8:64.
              92. Eshghi N, Lundeen TF, MacKinnon L, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring response of Merkel cell carcinoma to the novel programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitor avelumab. Clin Nucl Med 2018; 43:e142–e144.
              93. 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; 30:843–849.
              94▪. Perez MC, de Pinho FR, Holstein A, et al. Resection margins in Merkel cell carcinoma: Is a 1-cm margin wide enough? Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25:3334–3340.

              Therapeutical approach.

              95. Patel P, Modi C, McLellan B, et al. Radiotherapy for inoperable Merkel cell carcinoma: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Dermatol Pract Concept 2018; 8:149–157.
              96. Veness M, Howle J. Radiotherapy alone in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma: the Westmead Hospital experience of 41 patients. Australas J Dermatol 2015; 56:19–24.
              97▪. Nghiem P, Kaufman HL, Bharmal M, et al. Systematic literature review of efficacy, safety and tolerability outcomes of chemotherapy regimens in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. Future Oncol 2017; 13:1263–1279.

              Reference reviewing the chemotherapy as a therapeutical approach for Merkel cell carcinoma.

              98. 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; 29:1539–1546.
              99. Afanasiev OK, Yelistratova L, Miller N, et al. Merkel polyomavirus-specific T cells fluctuate with merkel cell carcinoma burden and express therapeutically targetable PD-1 and Tim-3 exhaustion markers. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19:5351–5360.
              100▪▪. Goh G, Walradt T, Markarov V, et al. Mutational landscape of MCPyV-positive and MCPyV-negative Merkel cell carcinomas with implications for immunotherapy. Oncotarget 2016; 7:3403–3415.

              Important reference reporting the mutational landscape of Merkel cell carcinoma.

              101. Choy M. Pharmaceutical approval update. P T 2017; 42:366–371.
              102. Bavencio 20 mg/mL concentrate for solution for infusion. Summary of product characteristics. Available at: (Accessed 11 November 2018).
              103. Avelumab for Merkel cell carcinoma. Aust Prescr 2018; 41:55.
              104▪▪. Kaufman HL, Russell J, Hamid O, et al. Avelumab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: a multicentre, single-group, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:1374–1385.

              Major reference on the new developement of immunotherapy approach.

              105▪▪. Kaufman HL, Russell JS, Hamid O, et al. Updated efficacy of avelumab in patients with previously treated metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma after ≥1 year of follow-up: JAVELIN Merkel 200, a phase 2 clinical trial. J Immunother Cancer 2018; 6:7.

              Follow-up for the new therapeutical approach.

              106▪▪. Kaufman HL, Dias Barbosa C, Guillemin I, et al. Living with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC): Development of a conceptual model of MCC based on patient experiences. Patient 2018; 11:439–449.

              First and only reference relating patient experience.

              107▪▪. D’Angelo SP, Russell J, Lebbe C, et al. Efficacy and safety of first-line avelumab treatment in patients with stage IV metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: a preplanned interim analysis of a clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4:e180077.

              Recent update on immunotherapy efficacy.

              108▪▪. Nghiem PT, Bhatia S, Lipson EJ, et al. PD-1 blockade with pembrolizumab in advanced Merkel-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:2542–2552.

              Major publication referring to the efficacy of immunotherapy.

              109. Topalian SL, Bhatia S, Hollebecque A, et al. Abstract CT074: Noncomparative, open-label, multiple cohort, phase 1/2 study to evaluate nivolumab (NIVO) in patients with virus-associated tumors (CheckMate 358): Efficacy and safety in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). Cancer Research 2017; 77:CT074–CT174.
              110▪▪. Giraldo NA, Nguyen P, Engle EL, et al. Multidimensional, quantitative assessment of PD-1/PD-L1 expression in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma and association with response to pembrolizumab. J Immunother Cancer 2018; 6:99.

              Important reference about immunological biomaker and possible therapeutical efficacy.

              111. Amaral T, Garbe C. Nonmelanoma skin cancer: new and future synthetic drug treatments. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2017; 18:689–699.
              112. Blackmon JT, Dhawan R, Viator TM, et al. Talimogene laherparepvec for regionally advanced Merkel cell carcinoma: a report of 2 cases. JAAD Case Rep 2017; 3:185–189.
              113▪. Segal NH, He AR, Doi T, et al. Phase I study of single-agent utomilumab (PF-05082566), a 4-1BB/CD137 agonist, in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2018; 24:1816–1823.

              Reference for new therapeutical approach.

              114. Rabinowits G, Lezcano C, Catalano PJ, et al. Cabozantinib in patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma. Oncologist 2018; 23:814–821.
              115. Costa A, Mackelfresh J, Gilbert L, et al. Activation of protein kinase C epsilon in Merkel cell polyomavirus-induced Merkel cell carcinoma. JAMA Dermatol 2017; 153:931–932.
              116. Wardhani LO, Matsushita M, Iwasaki T, et al. Expression of the IDO1/TDO2-AhR pathway in tumor cells or the tumor microenvironment is associated with MCPyV status and prognosis in Merkel cell carcinoma. Hum Pathol 2018; pii: S0046-8177(18)30361-7. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.09.003. [Epub ahead of print].
              117. Kervarrec T, Gaboriaud P, Tallet A, et al. VEGF-A inhibition as a potential therapeutic approach in Merkel cell carcinoma. J Invest Dermatol 2018; pii: S0022-202X(18)32682-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2018.08.029. [Epub ahead of print].
              118▪. Mitteldorf C, Berisha A, Tronnier M, et al. PD-1 and PD-L1 in neoplastic cells and the tumor microenvironment of Merkel cell carcinoma. J Cutan Pathol 2017; 44:740–746.

              Immunological markers.


              avelumab; diagnosis; immune checkpoint inhibitors; immunotherapy; Merkel cell carcinoma; therapeutic advances

              Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.