ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2025
Optimizing surgical margins in the treatment of eyelid Merkel cell carcinoma: a tertiary center experience and literature review.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) of the eyelid is rare and aggressive. Diagnostic delay and inadequate excision may promote early nodal spread. We assessed the influence of surgical margins and re-excision timing on outcomes, supported by a PRISMA-guided systematic review on metastatic risk. Methods: A single-center retrospective series (2012-2024) included 9 histologically confirmed eyelid MCCs, analyzing presentation, treatment, and outcomes. Surgical strategies were classified as one-step wide local excision (1WLE, ≥5 mm), two-step wide local excision (2WLE) with early (E2WLE, ≤2 months) or late (L2WLE, 6 months) re-excision, and insufficient margin excision (IME, <2 mm without re-excision). A systematic review identified periocular MCC cases with individual-level data on margins and outcomes. Results: Patients (median age 71.8 years, range 42-92; 89% female) all presented with solitary nodules on the upper eyelid, and were node-negative and metastasis-free at diagnosis, consistent with AJCC 8th clinical stage I-IIA.Median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 12-120). Treatments included 1WLE (n=4), 2WLE (n=3; 2 E2WLE, 1 L2WLE), and IME (n=2). Three patients (33%) developed cervical lymph node metastases within 1-3 months: one after L2WLE (fatal at 12 months) and two after IME. Both IME patients showed marked responses to Avelumab. Of the remaining six, four (67%) remained disease-free and two (33%) died of unrelated causes. Metastatic risk was significantly higher after IME versus sufficient margins (p=0.0119). In the PRISMA-guided review (76 eyelid MCC), insufficient margins correlated with adverse outcomes; in a subset without baseline metastasis (n=39), insufficient margins increased risk of recurrence/metastasis (OR 10.56; 95% CI 1.84-77.24 Conclusion: In eyelid MCC, adequate margins at first surgery or early re-excision are crucial to prevent early nodal spread. Our findings emphasize the prognostic value of surgical adequacy and support incorporating wide excision into initial management. Further multicenter studies are warranted to define evidence-based management pathways, improve long-term outcomes, and clarify the role of checkpoint inhibition in periocular MCC.
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.