Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 559

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pathologic nodal evaluation improves prognostic accuracy in Merkel cell carcinoma: Analysis of 5823 cases as the basis of the first consensus staging system

Open access
Lemos, Bianca D., Storer, Barry E., Iyer, Jayasri G., Phillips, Jerri Linn, Bichakjian, Christopher K., Fang, L. Christine, Johnson, Timothy M., Liegeois-Kwon, Nanette J., Otley, Clark C., Paulson, Kelly G., Ross, Merrick I., Yu, Siegrid S., Zeitouni, Nathalie C., Byrd, David R., Sondak, Vernon K., Gershenwald, Jeffrey E., Sober, Arthur J., Nghiem, Paul·2010·Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Abstract

Background The management of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) has been complicated by a lack of detailed prognostic data and by the presence of conflicting staging systems. Objective To determine the prognostic significance of tumor size, clinical vs pathologic nodal evaluation, and extent of disease at presentation and thereby derive the first consensus staging/prognostic system for MCC. Methods 5,823 prospectively enrolled MCC cases from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) had follow-up data (median 64 months) and were used for prognostic analyses. Results At 5 years, overall survival was 40% and relative survival (compared to age- and sex-matched population data) was 54%. Among all MCC cases, 66% presented with local, 27% with nodal and 7% with distant metastatic disease. For cases presenting with local disease only, smaller tumor size was associated with better survival (stage I: ≤2cm: 66% relative survival at five years; stage II: >2cm: 51%; p<0.0001). Patients with clinically local-only disease and pathologically proven negative nodes had better outcome (76% at five years) than those who only underwent clinical nodal evaluation (59%, p<0.0001). Limitations The NCDB does not capture disease-specific survival. Overall survival for MCC patients was therefore used to calculate relative survival based on matched population data. Conclusion Although the majority (68%) of MCC patients in this nationwide cohort did not undergo pathologic nodal evaluation, this procedure may be indicated in many cases as it improves prognostic accuracy and has important treatment implications for those found to have microscopic nodal involvement.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.02.056

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 559

Metadata

Authors
Lemos, B. D., Storer, B. E., Iyer, J. G., Phillips, J. L., Bichakjian, C. K., Fang, L. C., Johnson, T. M., Liegeois-Kwon, N. J., Otley, C. C., Paulson, K. G., Ross, M. I., Yu, S. S., Zeitouni, N. C., Byrd, D. R., Sondak, V. K., Gershenwald, J. E., Sober, A. J., & Nghiem, P.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
63
Issue
5
Pages
751-761
ISSN
0190-9622 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2066401368
Cited by
559
References
1
FWCI
15.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pathologic nodal evaluation improves prognostic accuracy in Merkel cell carcinoma: Analysis of 5823 cases as the basis of the first consensus staging system. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jaad.2010.02.056
The paper
Lemos, B. D., Storer, B. E., Iyer, J. G., Phillips, J. L., Bichakjian, C. K., Fang, L. C., Johnson, T. M., Liegeois-Kwon, N. J., Otley, C. C., Paulson, K. G., Ross, M. I., Yu, S. S., Zeitouni, N. C., Byrd, D. R., Sondak, V. K., Gershenwald, J. E., Sober, A. J., & Nghiem, P. (2010). Pathologic nodal evaluation improves prognostic accuracy in Merkel cell carcinoma: Analysis of 5823 cases as the basis of the first consensus staging system. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2010.02.056

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.