Recurrence and mortality rates with different treatment approaches of Merkel cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive treatment recommendations for Merkel cell carcinoma are complex. We aimed to systematically review the published data on recurrence and mortality rates associated with various treatment approaches for Merkel cell carcinoma. METHODS: Search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to August 2015. Studies were included that reported comparative survival and recurrence data for two or more treatment modalities. Two reviewers independently reviewed and abstracted recurrence and mortality rates. Event rates for individual treatment arms in each study were pooled and meta-analyzed across studies using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Fifty-two retrospective studies met inclusion criteria, revealing a total of 1,804 patients with primary Merkel cell carcinoma with data available for analyses. The recurrence rate was higher for surgery alone (55.0%) versus a combination of surgery and radiotherapy (39.0%) (odds ratio, 2.089; 95% CI, 1.374-3.177; P < 0.001). Combination therapy including surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy had a higher mortality rate (44.6%) than did combined surgery and radiotherapy (23.2%) (odds ratio, 2.688; 95% CI, 1.196-6.037; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of Merkel cell carcinoma with surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy may produce lower recurrence rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".