Page 36 - Read Online
P. 36

damage signatures at the genetic level, presumably as a   Exome sequencing studies performed on small numbers of
            result of UV exposure. [114,115]                  formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded MCC samples and also
                                                              identified  RB1  in  MCPyV  negative  tumors. [135]  Another
            MCC is highly  metastatic  and the  5 year  survival  rate   small study conducted on 4 MCPyV positive tumors
            is dependent on the stage at which original diagnosis is   identified somatic mutations in PDE4DIP, as well as genes
            made.  Patients  with  local  disease at  diagnosis  have  a  5   within the DNA damage  response (PRKDC,  AURKB,
            year OS of 63-87%, those with regional nodal involvement   ERCC5,  ATR and  ATRX) and epigenetic  modifying
            39-42% and 0-18% for patients with widespread, distant   enzymes (MLL3). [136]  Harms et al. [115]  performed a slightly
            metastases. [116]  The annual incidence of MCC in the US   larger study of whole exome  sequencing  of 9 MCPyV
            is increasing, with an estimated 1,600 patients diagnosed   negative and 7 MCPyV positive MCC samples. Known
            per year. [117]   The increase  in incidence  is attributed  to   mutations  were  identified  in  TP53,  RB1 and  PIK3CA
            population aging, more known risk factors associated with   along  with  novel  activating  mutations  in  oncogenes
            this cancer (such as increased aggregate  sun exposure),   like  HRAS, loss-of-function  mutations  in  PRUNE2 and
            and increased  diagnostic  power with cytokeratin  20   NOTCH family genes, and mutations disrupting the PI3K
            immunohistochemical  staining, which is positive in 88-  signaling pathway in the MCPyV negative tumors. [115,137]
            100% of MCC cases. [118]                          Further, the  MCPyV negative  tumors also had a  higher
                                                              overall  mutational  burden and were characterized  by a
            There  are no FDA-approved agents for the treatment   prominent  UV-signature pattern with C >  T transitions
            of MCC, nor are there  established,  standard of care   making up 85% of the mutations. MCPyV positive tumors
            chemotherapy regimens. [109]   Current  first  line  therapies   had a much lower mutational burden and were lacking the
            for localized disease include surgical resection followed   UV signature,  suggesting  that  MCPyV negative  tumors
            by postoperative  radiation  therapy. Radiotherapy  plays   have increased susceptibility to UV damage. [115]  The most
            a  significant  role  in  both  the  curative  setting,  and   comprehensive study to date included exome sequencing
            palliative  care  setting  when used as a monotherapy  in   of 49 MCC samples  (21 positive, 27 negative). [114]  This
            advanced  metastatic  MCC. [119]   Systemic  chemotherapy   study confirmed the previous report that the signature of
            regimens used for SCLC are employed and typically   MCPyV negative tumors is very different than the MCPyV
            include a combination  of a platinum  agent (cisplatin  or   positive tumors. MCPyV negative tumors have a higher
            carboplatin) and topoisomerase inhibitor (etoposide) [120-122]    mutation  burden, frequent  mutations in  TP53 and  RB1
            or combination cyclophosphamide,  doxorubicin  and   and additional mutations in genes involved in chromatin
            vincristine  therapy (CAV therapy). [122]  Cytotoxic   modification (ASXL1, MLL2 and MLL3) and DNA damage
            chemotherapies  do not produce durable responses  and   pathways (ATM,  MSH2,  BRCA1). Interestingly, both
            are  associated  with  significant  toxicity,  highlighting   MCPyV positive and negative tumors have mutations
            the  need  for targeted,  mechanism-based  therapies.   predicted to activate the PI3K  pathway (HRAS,  KRAS,
            Immunohistochemical  analysis  of  MCC tumors  has led   PIK3CA,  PTEN and  TSC1) and to inactivate  the Notch
            to development and use of several new mechanism-based   signaling pathway (Notch1, Notch2), [114]  suggesting these
            therapies including SSAs  (octreotide,  lanreotide), [123,124]    pathways as putative  points for intervention  in MCC
            pan-receptor  tyrosine  kinase  inhibitors  (pazopanib), [125]    regardless of viral status.
            PI3K inhibitors, [126,127]  vitamin  D receptor  agonists, [128]
            small  molecules to  downregulate  Survivin, [129,130]  anti-  As discussed for SCLC and enteropancreatic NETs, another
            PD-L1 antibody therapy, [131]  and an antibody  conjugate   possible point of intervention is by targeting cancer stem
            linking a maytansinoid microtubule assembly inhibitor to   cells. However, in the case of MCC, the cell of origin is
            CD56 (lorvotuzumab mertansine). [132]  Many of these are   still under debate. Based on early observation of MCC and
            now in clinical trials for MCC and an excellent review of   the  similarity  of  expression  patterns  for  neuroendocrine
            future  potential  therapeutic  options and current  clinical   and epithelial markers, it was presumed that MCCs arise
            trials for MCC can be found in ref. [118]         from the Merkel cell, part of the somatosensory system
                                                              located  within  the  basal epidermis. However, with the
            In addition  to  immunohistochemistry, genomic  studies   observations that Merkel cells and MCC  are found in
            have also been applied to MCC to identify new therapeutic   different regions of the skin and exhibit  differential
            targets and understand the mechanism  of tumorigenesis   expression of marker proteins, new data are challenging the
            in both MCPyV positive and negative cases. Gene panel   concept that MCCs arise from Merkel cells. [138]  One theory,
            studies on 15 MCPyV negative and 12 MCPyV positive   based on pathologic diagnosis of MCC suggests a role for
            MCC samples identified mutations in TP53, KIT, PIK3CA   pluripotent stem cells in the dermis as the cells of origin,
            and  EGFR genes, with  RB1  mutations  only  identified   facilitated  by UV irradiation  and MCPyV infection. [139]
            in  the  virus negative  samples,  suggesting  that  the   Another study proposes that MCCs arise from pro/pre-B or
            dysregulation of the RB pathway may be a critical step   pre-B cells based on terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase
            in tumorigenesis. [133]   Targeted  sequencing  of 17 MCC   and PAX5 expression, as well  as the preference  for
            patient  samples  with  unknown  virus  status,  identified   polyomaviruses  to preferentially  infect  undifferentiated
            mutations in TP53, RB and NOTCH1, among others. [134]    stem cells or progenitor cells. [140]  However, in the absence
                         Journal of Cancer Metastasis and Treatment ¦ Volume 2 ¦ August 17, 2016 ¦        285
   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41