ArticleClinical case reports2024
Late subsequent Merkel cell carcinoma after 21 years of the first primary diagnosis: When to de-escalate surveillance?
Article in Clinical case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Evolving Therapeutics, Continued Challenges.Head & neck · 2025Review
- Late subsequent Merkel cell carcinoma after 21 years of the first primary diagnosis: When to de-escalate surveillance?Clinical case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Key Clinical Message: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) presents challenges in surveillance due to varied recurrence rates and uncertain follow-up protocols, especially in late recurrent cases. These cases need personalized monitoring strategies beyond traditional timelines, such as clinical and molecular factors, in order to optimize patient outcomes. Abstract: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation with a propensity for recurrence following initial treatment. Surveillance strategies for MCC patients lack specificity, and the duration of surveillance remains uncertain, posing challenges in identifying appropriate follow-up intervals. Therefore, we present a 94-year-old woman, with history of stage IA MCC in her left nasal wall 21 years prior, that presented with a dome-shaped eroded nodule on her left fifth finger. Biopsy showed characteristic MCC features with positive immunohistochemistry for CD56, synaptophysin, and CK20 (perinuclear dotting). The patient opted against further imaging or lymph node biopsy and underwent Mohs micrographic surgery. To date, there has not been any evidence of recurrence at previous sites or development of new primary lesions. This case underscores the need for ongoing surveillance despite long disease-free intervals. It also stands out as the case demonstrating the longest latency/recurrence-free interval following the initial diagnosis of MCC in the literature. While most recurrences occur within the first few years post-diagnosis, our case highlights the exceptional nature of late recurrences and prompts reevaluation of surveillance protocols. Current guidelines recommend surveillance for up to 3 years post-treatment, but factors, such as patient demographics and tumor characteristics, may warrant extended monitoring periods. Emerging biomarkers, such as Merkel cell polyomavirus status and circulating tumor DNA, show promise in predicting and monitoring recurrences, but their utility in late recurrence detection requires further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.