SynthesisIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for treatment of periocular Merkel cell carcinoma: A systematic review of clinical outcomes and safety.
Synthesis in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on: Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for treatment of periocular Merkel cell carcinoma - Exploring ocular side effects.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
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
Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive neurocutaneous malignancy associated with ultraviolet damage, immunosuppression, and Merkel cell polyoma virus infection. Periocular MCC is uncommon but has high rates of local recurrence and metastasis and presents unique therapeutic challenges due to functional and cosmetic considerations. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has shown efficacy in systemic MCC; however, evidence for periocular use is limited to small case series and reports without consolidated evidence or consensus. Thus, this study summarizes and evaluates the effectiveness and safety of ICIs for periocular MCC. A systematic literature search across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Randomized and nonrandomized studies, case series, and case reports in English describing ICI use for periocular MCC were included. Non-human studies, non-periocular MCC, and reports without ICI treatment were excluded. Extracted data included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment regimen, and patient outcomes. Seven studies reporting ten patients were included. Treatment regimens consisted of pembrolizumab (n = 6) and avelumab (n = 3), or both medications (n = 1). At a mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 9.0 months, nine patients had complete response (90%); only one patient developed subsequent distant progression despite local response. Patients with both localized periocular disease and metastatic involvement demonstrated favorable responses to ICI. Adverse effects were infrequent and typically mild; only one patient discontinued therapy due to adverse effects. ICIs may be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for local and advanced periocular MCC; however, larger, prospective studies are needed.
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.