4.6 Article

Relationships among primary tumor size, number of involved nodes, and survival for 8044 cases of Merkel cell carcinoma

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.11.031

关键词

average tumor size; Merkel cell carcinoma; National Cancer Data Base; neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin; nodal spread; prognosis; regional node metastasis; sentinel lymph node biopsy

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [K02-AR50993]
  2. American Cancer Society [RSG-08-115-01-CCE]
  3. NIH [K24-CA139052]
  4. David and Rosalind Bloom Endowment for Merkel Cell Carcinoma Research
  5. Michael Piepkorn Endowment
  6. University of Washington

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The effects of primary tumor size on nodal involvement and of number of involved nodes on survival have not, to our knowledge, been examined in a national database of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). Objective: We sought to analyze a retrospective cohort of patients with MCC from the largest US national database to assess the relationships between these clinical parameters and survival. Methods: A total of 8044 MCC cases in the National Cancer Data Base were analyzed. Results: There was a 14% risk of regional nodal involvement for 0.5-cm tumors that increased to 25% for 1.7-cm (median-sized) tumors and to more than 36% for tumors 6 cm or larger. The number of involved nodes was strongly predictive of survival (0 nodes, 76% 5-year relative survival; 1 node, 50%; 2 nodes, 47%; 3-5 nodes, 42%; and >= 6 nodes, 24%; P<.0001 for trend). Younger and/or male patients were more likely to undergo pathological nodal evaluation. Limitations: The National Cancer Data Base does not capture disease-specific survival. Hence, relative survival was calculated by comparing overall survival with age-and sex-matched US population data. Conclusion: Pathologic nodal evaluation should be considered even for patients with small primary MCC tumors. The number of involved nodes is strongly predictive of survival and may help improve prognostic accuracy and management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据