Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare (∼2,000 U.S. cases/year) but aggressive neuroendocrine tumor of the skin. For advanced MCC, cytotoxic chemotherapy only infrequently (<10% of cases) offers durable clinical responses (>1 year), suggesting a great need for improved therapeutic options. In 2008, the Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) was discovered and is clonally integrated in approximately 80% of MCC tumors. The remaining 20% of MCC tumors have large numbers of UV-associated mutations. Importantly, both the UV-induced neoantigens in virus-negative tumors and the MCPyV T antigen oncogenes that are required for virus-positive tumor growth are immunogenic. Indeed, antigen-specific T cells detected in patients are frequently dysfunctional/“exhausted,” and the inhibitory ligand, PD-L1, is often present in MCC tumors. These findings led to recent clinical trials involving PD-1 pathway blockade in advanced MCC. The combined data from these trials involving three PD-1 pathway blocking agents—avelumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab—indicated a high frequency of durable responses in treated patients. Of note, prior treatment with chemotherapy was associated with decreased response rates to PD-1 checkpoint blockade. Over the past year, these striking data led to major changes in advanced MCC therapy, including the first-ever FDA drug approval for this disease. Despite these successes, approximately 50% of patients with MCC do not persistently benefit from PD-1 pathway blockade, underscoring the need for novel strategies to broaden antitumor immune responses in these patients. Here, we highlight recent progress in MCC including the underlying mechanisms of immune evasion and emerging approaches to augment the efficacy of PD-1 pathway blockade. Clin Cancer Res; 24(9); 2035–43. ©2017 AACR.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare (∼2,000 U.S. cases/year) but aggressive skin cancer with a high risk of recurrence (27%–31%; refs. 1–3). Although MCC is rare, its incidence is rising steadily (4, 5). Risk factors include advanced age, sun/UV exposure, and chronic immunosuppression (∼8% of patients with MCC have hematologic malignancy, solid organ transplant, or HIV/AIDS; ref. 6). Although 92% of patients with MCC are not immunosuppressed, individuals who have chronic T-cell dysfunction have an increased likelihood of developing MCC (10- to 30-fold; refs. 6–8). Only 4% of MCC cases occur in patients under 50 years of age, and MCC risk increases significantly with every additional decade of life (4, 9), likely due in part to increased immune senescence. The disease-associated mortality of MCC is 46% within 5 years (10), highlighting the need for improved therapeutic strategies.

The presentation of MCC can be challenging for physicians to recognize (Fig. 1), in part, due to its rarity. In two thirds of cases, physicians suspect a benign lesion based on clinical appearance (6). The following mnemonic summarizes features associated with MCC: Asymptomatic, Expanding rapidly, in an Immune-suppressed patient Older than 50 and on UV-exposed skin (AEIOU; ref. 6). As 89% of MCCs had three or more of these features (6), this mnemonic is sensitive; however, it is not specific for MCC, as such lesions may often represent another nonmelanoma skin cancer or a benign lesion such as an inflamed cyst. MCC diagnosis is confirmed through pathologic review of a biopsied lesion. Pathologic sections of MCC exhibit small cells with little cytoplasm (Fig. 1). The histologic recognition of MCC was greatly facilitated by the determination that perinuclear, coarsely granulated CK20 (KRT20) staining is present in 90% of MCC cases (11, 12).

Figure 1.

Clinical and histologic appearance of MCC. Left, clinical appearance of an MCC arising on the left cheek of a 55-year-old man. The tumor was red, firm, nontender, and rapidly growing on sun-exposed skin. The differential diagnosis would include other types of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Center, intradermal tumor with pleiomorphic cells with large nuclei and scant cytoplasm. Right, cytokeratin 20 (CK20) IHC staining exhibits the characteristic perinuclear expression of CK20, a highly diagnostic finding for MCC.

Figure 1.

Clinical and histologic appearance of MCC. Left, clinical appearance of an MCC arising on the left cheek of a 55-year-old man. The tumor was red, firm, nontender, and rapidly growing on sun-exposed skin. The differential diagnosis would include other types of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Center, intradermal tumor with pleiomorphic cells with large nuclei and scant cytoplasm. Right, cytokeratin 20 (CK20) IHC staining exhibits the characteristic perinuclear expression of CK20, a highly diagnostic finding for MCC.

Close modal

Early studies indicated that MCC can be linked to decreased immune function. One key study found that patients with HIV have a 13-fold increased MCC risk compared with population controls (8). Also, case reports have described the uncommon, spontaneous regression of MCC tumors under a variety of scenarios, further indicating a link to the immune system (13–15). These data collectively suggested that MCC may be linked to a pathogen. In 2008, the Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) was discovered, and it is now clear that this virus plays a key role in the majority of MCC cases (16).

MCPyV is a member of the polyomavirus family comprised of nonenveloped, double-stranded DNA viruses and is the first virus from this family known to cause cancer in humans. MCPyV-specific antibodies have been detected in approximately 45% of children and in 80% of individuals 50 years or older, indicating that it is highly prevalent in the population (17). Interestingly, despite this high prevalence, MCPyV has not been shown to cause any disease other than when it very rarely leads to MCC. We now understand key aspects of the mystery of how a virus with an extremely high incidence leads to a cancer that is very rare.

MCPyV-related oncogenesis requires two separate events likely accounting for its rarity: (i) The circular double-stranded genome must be linearized and integrated into the host genome, perhaps after a DNA-damaging event (MCPyV-positive tumors frequently occur on sun-exposed skin), and (ii) the virus must be mutated, with loss of expression of the C-terminus of the large T (LT) antigen that is required for viral DNA replication (Fig. 2). Virus-induced MCC is driven, in part, by expression of truncated large T antigen that binds to and inactivates the tumor suppressor Rb (RB1; Fig. 2; ref. 18), promoting cell-cycle progression and uncontrolled proliferation (19, 20). Small T (sT) inhibits the proteasomal degradation of large T (21) as well as the oncoprotein cMyc (MYC) and cyclin E (CCNE1; ref. 21). Both large T and small T have been demonstrated to drive transformation in mammalian cells in vitro (18, 20, 22); however, numerous attempts to generate mouse models of MCC at best only partially emulate the disease in adult animals (23–25). These data indicate that additional, as yet undetermined factors are required for induction of MCPyV-associated MCC. Although several groups have successfully generated xenografts using MCC cell lines and postoperative tumor tissue, engraftment can be done only in NOD SCID IL2Rgamma−/− (NSG) mice, which have a severely impaired immune system. These xenograft models mimic the gross pathologic features of the corresponding patient's tumor but fail to recapitulate the tumor–immune interactions that are now understood to greatly affect patient outcomes. In vitro experiments have demonstrated that ongoing expression of MCPyV oncoproteins is required for survival of virus-positive MCC cells (26–28). These persistently expressed non–self-antigens can potently elicit host immune recognition, and the limited size of MCPyV T antigens (<400 amino acids) has facilitated immune studies of MCPyV-specific T-cell responses (29–32).

Figure 2.

Comparison of virus-positive and virus-negative MCC tumors. This schematic depicts the two major causes of MCC, their prevalence, differences in their potential immune targets, and frequencies of response to immune therapy. Top, differences in MCC prevalence—United States (U.S.)/Europe versus Australia. Left, virus-induced tumorigenesis—the highly prevalent MCPyV is often found on normal skin. Rarely, MCPyV will integrate into the host genome, and through a separate rare event, large T will become truncated (tLT; depicted by red Xs) prior its C-terminal. Expression of the sT and tLT viral oncogenes is tumorigenic through multiple pathways including inhibition of wild-type cellular Rb (see text). Right, UV-induced tumorigenesis—sun exposure results in the generation of many UV signature mutations (C→T mutations). The most common of which are in Rb and p53. Rb is frequently found to be inactivated in UV-induced MCC tumors (67%). Mutation of p53 includes both activating and inactivating mutations (16, 18–21, 40–43, 71–75).

Figure 2.

Comparison of virus-positive and virus-negative MCC tumors. This schematic depicts the two major causes of MCC, their prevalence, differences in their potential immune targets, and frequencies of response to immune therapy. Top, differences in MCC prevalence—United States (U.S.)/Europe versus Australia. Left, virus-induced tumorigenesis—the highly prevalent MCPyV is often found on normal skin. Rarely, MCPyV will integrate into the host genome, and through a separate rare event, large T will become truncated (tLT; depicted by red Xs) prior its C-terminal. Expression of the sT and tLT viral oncogenes is tumorigenic through multiple pathways including inhibition of wild-type cellular Rb (see text). Right, UV-induced tumorigenesis—sun exposure results in the generation of many UV signature mutations (C→T mutations). The most common of which are in Rb and p53. Rb is frequently found to be inactivated in UV-induced MCC tumors (67%). Mutation of p53 includes both activating and inactivating mutations (16, 18–21, 40–43, 71–75).

Close modal

The robust response to MCPyV-positive tumors can include both T-cell and humoral components (33–35). At the time of diagnosis, approximately half of MCC patients make antibodies to MCPyV oncoproteins. Knowing a patient's serostatus (MCPyV positive or negative) can be helpful for his or her subsequent care. The prognosis of seronegative patients is less favorable (42% higher risk of recurrence than seropositive patients; refs. 35, 36), and thus, these patients need to be followed closely with scans (36). For seropositive patients, antibody titers correlate with tumor burden (33, 34), and a rising titer is an early indicator of disease recurrence (33). These findings have recently been validated in a large prospective cohort (36), and the test is now included in the 2018 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for MCC (37). Effective surveillance is relevant to patient care because if disease recurrence is discovered early (when tumor burden is lower), immunotherapy may be more effective (38).

Some MCC tumors have no MCPyV detectable by either DNA-PCR or IHC, which raised the question of whether virus-negative MCC exists or whether viral detection techniques were insufficient (39). Recent studies have demonstrated that MCPyV-negative MCC tumors do indeed exist, with variable incidence around the world (∼20% in United States/Europe vs. 76% in Australia; see Fig. 2; refs. 40–43). Strikingly, virus-negative MCC is among the most mutated of all solid tumors, including melanoma and non–small cell lung cancer (40–42). These mutations are mostly UV signature mutations (40–42). The high mutational burden (187–4,707 somatic single-nucleotide variants per exome) in MCC correlates to frequent amino acid changes and large numbers of UV-induced neoantigens (42). The most common mutations found in MCPyV-negative MCC are in p53 (TP53; 75% of cases) and Rb (67% of cases), commonly resulting in loss of functional protein expression (42). However, activating mutations also comprise a large proportion of the p53 mutations detected (45% of p53 mutations in MCC; ref. 42).

Definitive treatment of primary MCC includes surgery and/or radiation. This has been quite well established, and the consensus is summarized in the 2018 NCCN guidelines (37). Historically, chemotherapy was the preferred treatment option for advanced MCC despite a lack of data rigorously assessing its benefit in this setting. Recently, several careful retrospective studies have been carried out in the United States and Europe that document chemotherapy response rates and their durability (summarized in Table 1). A U.S. academic center–based study of 62 patients with distant metastatic MCC showed a first-line chemotherapy objective response rate (ORR) of 55%; however, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was only 94 days after chemotherapy initiation, and the median overall survival was 9.5 months (44). Second-line chemotherapy was even less favorable, with an ORR of 23% and a median PFS of 61 days (44). An independent study of 67 patients with metastatic MCC in the US Oncology Network also assessed responses to first- and second-line chemotherapy (45). This study found a first-line chemotherapy ORR of only 31%, with a median PFS of 4.6 months. Patients on their second or later line of chemotherapy had an ORR of 20% and a median PFS of 2.1 months (45). In a cohort of 34 patients from Europe whose disease had progressed following at least one line of chemotherapy, the patients' next line of chemotherapy had only a 9% ORR and a median duration of response of 1.9 months (46). These studies indicate that although MCC has a relatively high response rate to chemotherapy in the first line, responses are typically short-lived and resistance develops quickly. Multiple mechanisms are likely involved with the disappointing long-term benefit of chemotherapy in MCC. These may include its immunosuppressive effects in the setting of this immunogenic cancer as well as established mechanisms such as resistance to apoptosis (47).

Table 1.

Selected data for chemotherapy and anti-PD1/PD-L1 in MCC

ChemotherapyNivolumabAvelumabPembrolizumab
Line1st line2nd line≥1st line≥2nd line1st line
Cohort size 62–67 20–30 22 88 25 
Agent Etoposide and platinum-based agentb Topotecanb Anti–PD-1 Anti–PD-L1 Anti–PD-1 
ORR 31%–55% 9%–23% 68% 32% 56% 
9-month PFSa 15%–26% 0%–3% N/Ac 33% 56% 
Publications Becker, 2017d (46); Cowey, 2017 (45); Iyer, 2016 (44) Topalian, 2017 (52) Kaufman, 2016 (54) Nghiem, 2016 (50) 
ChemotherapyNivolumabAvelumabPembrolizumab
Line1st line2nd line≥1st line≥2nd line1st line
Cohort size 62–67 20–30 22 88 25 
Agent Etoposide and platinum-based agentb Topotecanb Anti–PD-1 Anti–PD-L1 Anti–PD-1 
ORR 31%–55% 9%–23% 68% 32% 56% 
9-month PFSa 15%–26% 0%–3% N/Ac 33% 56% 
Publications Becker, 2017d (46); Cowey, 2017 (45); Iyer, 2016 (44) Topalian, 2017 (52) Kaufman, 2016 (54) Nghiem, 2016 (50) 

aValues estimated from charts.

bMost commonly used agents.

c9-Month PFS is not yet available; however, 3-month median PFS is 82%.

dData for second-line chemotherapy only.

Over the last decade, several lines of evidence have suggested that immune status is linked to clinical outcomes in MCC, indicating that augmenting cell-mediated immunity could be beneficial. An early study focusing on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes found that patients with robust CD8+ lymphocyte infiltration into MCC tumors had 100% MCC-specific survival compared with 60% survival in those with little or no CD8+ infiltration (48). These data indicated that infiltration by CD8 T cells had profound prognostic value and that augmenting immune function could benefit patients with MCPyV-driven MCC. The specificity of CD8+ lymphocytes was then studied, and MCPyV oncoprotein–specific cells were found to be present in MCC patient blood and enriched in patients' tumors (29, 30). Importantly, signs of dysfunction were evident in MCPyV-specific CD8+ T cells from patients, as they expressed both PD-1 (PDCD1) and Tim3 (HAVCR2), the combination of which suggests functional exhaustion (29). When the tumor microenvironment was investigated, 49% of 49 tumors contained PD-L1 (CD274, typically expressed on antigen-presenting cells) and expression tended to correlate with the presence of intratumoral lymphocytes (49). In aggregate, these findings made a compelling case for testing PD-1 pathway blockade in MCC.

To date, three antibodies targeting the PD-1 axis have been studied in MCC, with all three showing substantial response rates and impressive durability of responses (summarized in Table 1). Although the numbers of patients studied are small compared with other more prevalent cancer types, these early trials have demonstrated frequent therapeutic durability, whereas there was previously little hope for patients with advanced MCC. A National Cancer Institute–sponsored clinical trial studied pembrolizumab (anti–PD-1) in 25 patients with advanced MCC who had not received prior systemic therapy. The investigators found an ORR to pembrolizumab of 56% including a 16% complete response rate. Of the 14 responsive patients, the response duration ranged from at least 2.2 months to at least 9.7 months. Overall, the trial had an estimated PFS of 67% at 6 months. Pembrolizumab was effective in both virus-negative and virus-positive tumors (ORR of 62% and 44% respectively, not significantly different; ref. 50). The early results of this trial led to pembrolizumab being listed as a treatment option for advanced disease in the 2017 NCCN guidelines for MCC (51).

An international, single arm, open-label trial of nivolumab (anti–PD-1) included both patients who had and who had not received prior chemotherapy (36% and 64%, respectively). In this study, 15 of 22 patients (68%) had objective responses, and PFS at 3 months was 82% with the trial still ongoing (52).

A large international clinical trial studied avelumab (anti–PD-L1) in 88 patients with distant metastatic disease who had previously received at least one line of chemotherapy. This trial found an ORR of 33%, with a complete response rate of 11%. At 6 months, PFS was 40%, and the estimated PFS at 1 year was 30%. As with pembrolizumab, avelumab was found to be effective in both virus-positive and virus-negative tumors (ORR of 26% and 35%, respectively, not significantly different; refs. 53, 54). In March 2017, these remarkable data in chemotherapy-refractory MCC led to the first-ever FDA approval of a drug for this cancer. Avelumab was granted accelerated approval in advanced MCC in patients at least 12 years of age whether or not they have previously received chemotherapy (55).

Now that avelumab has been approved for treatment of advanced MCC, an important question remains: namely, whether treatment with PD-1 pathway blockade in the adjuvant setting is appropriate and/or beneficial for treatment of this aggressive disease. As with other cancer treatments in general, catching and treating the tumor early correlates with improved prognosis. This possibility, in the context of PD-1 pathway blockade in primary MCC, will be addressed by two (one of which is double blinded and randomized) clinical trials that are now recruiting (Table 2).

Table 2.

Selected immune therapy clinical trials for Merkel cell carcinoma

NCT identifierTrial armsRecruitment statusPhaseTargeted enrollmentCommentsPublications
Anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy 
 NCT02155647 Avelumab as ≥2nd line Active, not recruiting II 88 28 of 88 chemotherapy-refractory patients achieved a response including eight complete responses (ORR = 32%) Kaufman, 2016 (54) 
 NCT02155647 Avelumab as 1st line Recruiting II 112 Preliminary results show an objective response in 11 of 16 patients (ORR = 69%) D'Angelo, 2017 (76) 
 NCT02267603 Pembrolizumab as 1st line Active, not recruiting II 50 Four of 25 patients evaluated had a complete response and 10/25 had a partial response (ORR = 56%) Nghiem, 2016 (50) 
 NCT02488759 Nivolumab as 1st or ≥2nd line Active, not recruiting I/II 25 22 patients initially evaluated on nivolumab alone, 12 had a partial response, and three had a complete response (ORR = 68%) Topalian, 2017 (52) 
 NCT02196961 Avelumab as adjuvant versus observation following resection Recruiting II 113 Only in Europea  
 NCT03271372 Avelumab as adjuvant 1st line Recruiting III 100 Stage III/IIIB nodal disease, randomized, double blinded  
Checkpoint blockade combination therapy 
 NCT02488759 Nivolumab ± anti-LAG3 (BMS-9861016) ± ipilimumab (many arms) Recruiting I/II 500 Cohort of patients with virus-associated cancers  
 NCT03071406 Ipilimumab + nivolumab versus ipilimumab + nivolumab + stereotactic body radiation therapy Recruiting II 50   
Innate immunity agents and cytokines 
 NCT02035657 TLR-4 agonist, GLA-SE Completed 10 Two of three patients with local nodal disease had a complete response, and two of seven patients with distant metastatic disease had stable disease Bhatia, 2016 (60) 
 NCT01440816 IL12-EP Completed II 15 Four of 15 patients treated with IL12 had an objective response Bhatia, 2015 (61) 
Cell-based therapies 
 NCT02584829 Autologous MCPyV-specific CD8 cells + avelumab + MHC upregulation versus avelumab + MHC upregulation Recruiting I/II 20 Four of four patients had responses with 3/4 complete responses Paulson, 2017 (66) 
 NCT02465957 NK cells (activated NK-92) + ALT-803 (modified IL15) Closed II 24 Initial three patients showed no major toxicities, and at least one patient had a response Bhatia, 2016 (64) 
Oncolytic virus therapies 
 NCT02819843 T-VEC versus T-VEC + hypofractionated radiotherapy Recruiting II 34 Cohort of melanoma and MCC  
 NCT02978625 T-VEC + nivolumab Not yet recruiting II 68 Cohort of refractory lymphomas and refractory nonmelanoma skin cancers  
Biomarker-guided combination therapy 
 NCT03167164 Avelumab, bevacizumab, capecitabine, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, nab-paclitaxel, omega-3-acid ethyl esters, stereotactic body radiation therapy, ALT-803, NK-92 (many arms) Not yet recruiting I/II 67 Treatment customized on the basis of tumor-specific characteristics  
NCT identifierTrial armsRecruitment statusPhaseTargeted enrollmentCommentsPublications
Anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy 
 NCT02155647 Avelumab as ≥2nd line Active, not recruiting II 88 28 of 88 chemotherapy-refractory patients achieved a response including eight complete responses (ORR = 32%) Kaufman, 2016 (54) 
 NCT02155647 Avelumab as 1st line Recruiting II 112 Preliminary results show an objective response in 11 of 16 patients (ORR = 69%) D'Angelo, 2017 (76) 
 NCT02267603 Pembrolizumab as 1st line Active, not recruiting II 50 Four of 25 patients evaluated had a complete response and 10/25 had a partial response (ORR = 56%) Nghiem, 2016 (50) 
 NCT02488759 Nivolumab as 1st or ≥2nd line Active, not recruiting I/II 25 22 patients initially evaluated on nivolumab alone, 12 had a partial response, and three had a complete response (ORR = 68%) Topalian, 2017 (52) 
 NCT02196961 Avelumab as adjuvant versus observation following resection Recruiting II 113 Only in Europea  
 NCT03271372 Avelumab as adjuvant 1st line Recruiting III 100 Stage III/IIIB nodal disease, randomized, double blinded  
Checkpoint blockade combination therapy 
 NCT02488759 Nivolumab ± anti-LAG3 (BMS-9861016) ± ipilimumab (many arms) Recruiting I/II 500 Cohort of patients with virus-associated cancers  
 NCT03071406 Ipilimumab + nivolumab versus ipilimumab + nivolumab + stereotactic body radiation therapy Recruiting II 50   
Innate immunity agents and cytokines 
 NCT02035657 TLR-4 agonist, GLA-SE Completed 10 Two of three patients with local nodal disease had a complete response, and two of seven patients with distant metastatic disease had stable disease Bhatia, 2016 (60) 
 NCT01440816 IL12-EP Completed II 15 Four of 15 patients treated with IL12 had an objective response Bhatia, 2015 (61) 
Cell-based therapies 
 NCT02584829 Autologous MCPyV-specific CD8 cells + avelumab + MHC upregulation versus avelumab + MHC upregulation Recruiting I/II 20 Four of four patients had responses with 3/4 complete responses Paulson, 2017 (66) 
 NCT02465957 NK cells (activated NK-92) + ALT-803 (modified IL15) Closed II 24 Initial three patients showed no major toxicities, and at least one patient had a response Bhatia, 2016 (64) 
Oncolytic virus therapies 
 NCT02819843 T-VEC versus T-VEC + hypofractionated radiotherapy Recruiting II 34 Cohort of melanoma and MCC  
 NCT02978625 T-VEC + nivolumab Not yet recruiting II 68 Cohort of refractory lymphomas and refractory nonmelanoma skin cancers  
Biomarker-guided combination therapy 
 NCT03167164 Avelumab, bevacizumab, capecitabine, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, nab-paclitaxel, omega-3-acid ethyl esters, stereotactic body radiation therapy, ALT-803, NK-92 (many arms) Not yet recruiting I/II 67 Treatment customized on the basis of tumor-specific characteristics  

NOTE: Therapies in the order listed in table: avelumab = anti–PD-L1 (IgG1); pembrolizumab = anti–PD-1 (IgG4); nivolumab = anti–PD-1 (IgG4); ipilimumab = anti–CTLA-4; GLA-SE = glucopyranosyl lipid A in stable emulsion, a TLR-4 agonist; F16-IL = anti-tenascin C mAb–IL2 fusion protein; IL12-EP = IL12 plasmid administered with electroporation; MHC upregulation via radiation or intratumoral IFNβ administration; NK-92 = activated, irradiated, allogenic natural killer cells; ALT-803 = IL15 superagonist complex; bevacizumab = anti-VEGF; T-VEC = talimogene laherparepvec, an engineered herpes oncolytic virus.

aUnless otherwise noted, trials include sites within the United States.

Anti–PD-1 checkpoint blockade therapies have proven to be well tolerated in a majority of patients. However, altering the balance of immune homeostasis can induce autoimmunity that results in grade 3 or grade 4 toxicity in 10% to 22% of cases (56, 57). As such, informed consent of patients is critical, particularly because immune-related adverse events (irAE) are typically idiosyncratic, making their early recognition and treatment challenging.

Importantly, the unique therapeutic benefits of these agents raise the question of whether they are indicated in patients who have a known autoimmune condition or previous irAE to ipilimumab. Indeed, patients with MCC exhibit higher numbers of autoimmune conditions than the population at large. Treatment of autoimmune disease is a major known iatrogenic cause of chronic, severe immune suppression that can increase the risk of multiple cancer types, including MCC (58). A recent retrospective analysis of 52 melanoma patients with prior autoimmune disease treated with PD-1 pathway blockade found comparable ORRs (33%) to those observed in clinical trials that have excluded patients with autoimmunity (59). Although 20 (38%) patients had a flare of autoimmune disease and another 15 (29%) developed other irAEs, only eight patients exhibited grade 3 toxicity of a preexisting autoimmune process or irAE, and just two patients permanently discontinued treatment. A separate study of 67 patients who had prior major ipilimumab toxicities exhibited a 40% ORR with PD-1 blockade (59). In this cohort, 25 (37%) patients experienced recurrence of ipilimumab-induced irAEs or developed new/different irAEs. Although 14 (21%) patients exhibited grade 3 to 4 irAEs, only eight (21%) patients discontinued therapy. In both of these cohorts, a majority of the immune toxicities could be controlled by symptom management, oral steroids, and/or steroid sparing agents (>80% of all irAEs observed). Taken as a whole, this study indicates that, after appropriate informed consent discussions with the patient, PD-1 pathway blockade may be considered despite the presence of prior autoimmune disease or ipilimumab-induced irAEs (59).

Despite the greatly improved durable responses observed through PD-1 checkpoint blockade therapy compared with chemotherapy, major challenges remain in systemic therapy for MCC in that nearly half of patients do not derive durable benefit from these drugs. To address this issue, numerous clinical trials are underway for MCC, at least nine of which involve immune therapy (Table 2). These trials involve four general strategies that will be summarized below: (i) “removing an additional brake” (i.e., CTLA-4) on the immune system, (ii) “stepping on the gas” by using innate or other immune agonists, (iii) “adding more troops” by infusing more of the relevant cells into the patient, and (iv) “weaponizing viruses” that can specifically target and kill cancer cells while preserving normal tissues.

Activated T cells express CTLA-4 (CTLA4) that suppresses their function after CTLA-4 binds its cognate receptor (CD80/CD86) on an antigen-presenting cell. In this way, CTLA-4 acts as a central type of immunologic “brake.” Anti–CTLA-4 antibody (ipilimumab) blocks this binding and allows the T cell to remain in a more active state. Ipilimumab efficacy in MCC is now being determined in clinical trials (Table 2). One trial enrolling patients in Germany will assess the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab or avelumab in the adjuvant setting following surgical resection of local MCC in comparison with resection alone. The ipilimumab arm of this trial has recently closed, whereas the arm investigating avelumab in the adjuvant setting is currently enrolling. In patients where PD-1 pathway blockade is ineffective, one hypothesis is that further augmentation of the immune response is required, possibly via CTLA-4. In a U.S.-based trial, 50 patients with metastatic MCC are being enrolled to test the safety and efficacy of the combination of nivolumab (anti–PD-1) and ipilimumab with and without stereotactic body radiation that can debulk the tumor and may induce immunogenic cell death. The combination of ipilimumab with PD-1 pathway blockade is also being performed in melanoma, and safety data from these trials would be expected to be similar.

Intratumoral immune infiltration and immune recognition/activation is regulated by pro- and anti-inflammatory molecules within the tumor–immune microenvironment. To increase the activity of antitumoral immune responses, several strategies seek to “step on the gas” by adding immune agonists that can reinvigorate antitumor T-cell responses. In a proof-of-concept trial, a Toll-like receptor-4 (TLR4) agonist, glucopyranosyl lipid-A stable emulsion (GLA-SE), was intratumorally injected into superficial MCC tumors (Table 2; ref. 60). In this trial, two of three patients with stage IIIB MCC were recurrence-free at 23+ and 19+ months with one patient having a pathologic complete response after two injections of this TLR-4 agonist (60). In a second cohort, two of seven patients with stage IV MCC had partial responses and were progression free after 13 months at the time of publication. Encouragingly, responses correlated with increased T-cell infiltration and activation of proinflammatory genes (60), providing proof of concept of this therapeutic approach.

Another trial of patients with superficial/accessible MCC tumors explored the utility of intratumoral electroporation of DNA encoding the potent proinflammatory cytokine IL12 (IL12A; Table 2; ref. 61). In this study, three of three patients with local disease who received definitive surgery and/or radiotherapy at 4 weeks after one cycle of three IL12 treatments had recurrence-free survival of 2+, 9, and 32+ months, with one patient having a pathologic complete response (61). In a second arm of this trial involving 12 patients with metastatic disease, partial responses were seen in three patients and stable disease was seen in one patient (61). Treatment corresponded with induction of IL12 and TNFα (TNF) expression in the tumor microenvironment as well as enhanced T-cell infiltration over baseline. Encouragingly, 40% of the injected lesions exhibited regression (30% complete and 10% partial), and another 40% were stable (61). Regression of noninjected lesions was also observed, and no grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported. Although very preliminary, these results highlight the potential of local IL12 administration.

Cell-based therapy is an emerging immunotherapeutic approach, particularly in the setting of certain types of immune evasion. MCC evades immune detection through a variety of mechanisms, including downregulation of HLA class I molecules required for antigen presentation, which occurs in 74% to 84% of MCC tumors (62, 63). Natural killer (NK) cells typically target cells that downregulate HLA class I expression. An NK cell–based trial that accepts patients whose tumors were refractory to prior checkpoint therapy involves biweekly infusions of activated, irradiated, allogeneic NK-92 cells (Table 2). Thus far in this study, three patients treated with NK cells showed no major toxicities and although very preliminary, one patient, who had not responded to PD-1 pathway blockade, had a complete response (64).

MCPyV-positive MCC tumors require expression of viral T antigen oncoproteins (26–28). In patients with certain HLA types, MCPyV oncoprotein–specific T cells can be isolated and expanded ex vivo prior to therapeutic infusion. In one trial utilizing this strategy (Table 2), three of four patients given T cells plus HLA upregulation (tumor-targeted radiation or interferon) progressed, whereas one that had an initial complete response subsequently progressed after 14 months. It was found that the infused T cells frequently became dysfunctional/“exhausted” upon transfer (65, 66). As such, avelumab (anti–PD-L1) has been added in combination with these autologous virus-specific T cells. In this combined-therapy cohort, all four patients treated with a regimen including T cells, HLA upregulation, and avelumab experienced objective responses, with three complete responses at last follow-up (65, 66). These early results, in a limited set of patients, highlight the potential for the rational design and implementation of transgenic T-cell receptors against virus-positive MCC tumors.

A mechanistically relevant therapy, recently approved for melanoma, is the oncolytic virotherapeutic tamilogene laherparepvec (T-VEC; ref. 67). The viral genes have been mutated so that the construct is replication-defective in normal cells, but constitutively active proliferative pathways in tumor cells allow the virus to replicate and kill those cells. The T-VEC design also includes a granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF, CSF2) expression cassette to induce a proinflammatory immune response. T-VEC is currently being investigated in two trials that include MCC (Table 2). In the first trial, T-VEC is used alone or in combination with hypofractionated radiotherapy. Another trial combines T-VEC with nivolumab (anti–PD-1) to augment the immune response in conjunction with T-VEC–mediated killing.

The diversity of drugs in development and currently being tested in clinical trials greatly outstrips our understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms at play (68). Indeed, nearly half of patients do not derive persistent benefit from PD-1 pathway blockade and neither tumor viral status nor biomarker studies accurately identify patients who will not respond (50, 66). In addition, mutation, adaptation, and selection for therapeutically resistant cells are remarkably powerful processes that continue to blunt therapeutic efficacy for all classes of drugs, including immunotherapy (68). To begin to address questions of response and nonresponse, a comprehensive, unbiased examination of host and tumor immune interactions in the tumor microenvironment is required.

MCC offers a particularly fertile hunting ground for studying the immune responses to cancers more broadly due to: (i) the unique relevance of MCC as a model for studying immunogenic cancers (e.g., viral oncoprotein vs. high UV-mutational load); (ii) the robust immune evasion, likely through multiple mechanisms, required for a tumor to persist despite such a heavy viral/neoantigen burden; (iii) the small size of the MCPyV T antigen oncogenes that greatly facilitates immunologic studies; and (iv) the generation of tumor-specific reagents that facilitate both studies of the antitumor immune response and improved therapy. As such, investigations of MCC are poised to contribute to the understanding of the biology of cancer immunogenicity.

Now more than ever, we are able to delve into the cellular and molecular complexities within any given tumor. The cost of next-generation sequencing technologies is rapidly decreasing. Single-cell sequencing is capable of analyzing hundreds to thousands of cells from small core biopsies making serial analysis of tumor tissues following therapy both more feasible and less invasive. Also, an ever-increasing number of targets can be stained using multiplexed IHC in combination with more sophisticated nucleic acid in situ hybridization techniques. In an attempt to combine this arsenal of molecular tools with clinical medicine, one trial will determine the genetic, transcriptomic, and proteomic details of a patient's tumor to customize therapy with immune and more traditional approaches (Table 2).

Detailed molecular analyses of the interactions within the tumor microenvironment in response to various immunotherapies will generate insights into therapeutically relevant targets (69, 70). Importantly, proper assessment of therapeutic efficacy or failure requires that serial tumor biopsies be obtained both before and after immune therapy despite their high costs and logistical challenges. With the recent striking progress in immune therapies for MCC, the diverse pipeline of agents, and forthcoming improvements in our ability to assess the tumor microenvironment, the future for MCC immunotherapy is very encouraging.

P. Nghiem reports receiving commercial research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and is a consultant/advisory board member for EMD Serono and Merck. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

P. Nghiem and A. Colunga were supported by NIH K24-CA139052, NIHR01CA176841, Kelsey Dickson Fund of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, UW MCC Patient Gift Fund (to A. Colunga), and the Bloom endowment at University of Washington. T. Pulliam was supported by 5T32GM007266.

1.
Mattavelli
I
,
Patuzzo
R
,
Torri
V
,
Gallino
G
,
Maurichi
A
,
Lamera
M
, et al
Prognostic factors in Merkel cell carcinoma patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy
.
Eur J Surg Oncol
2017
;
43
:
1536
41
.
2.
Jouary
T
,
Kubica
E
,
Dalle
S
,
Pages
C
,
Duval-Modeste
AB
,
Guillot
B
, et al
Sentinel node status and immunosuppression: recurrence factors in localized Merkel cell carcinoma
.
Acta Derm Venereol
2015
;
95
:
835
40
.
3.
Liang
E
,
Brower
JV
,
Rice
SR
,
Buehler
DG
,
Saha
S
,
Kimple
RJ
. 
Merkel cell carcinoma analysis of outcomes: a 30-year experience
.
PLoS One
2015
;
10
:
e0129476
.
4.
Agelli
M
,
Clegg
LX
. 
Epidemiology of primary Merkel cell carcinoma in the United States
.
J Am Acad Dermatol
2003
;
49
:
832
41
.
5.
Hodgson
NC
. 
Merkel cell carcinoma: changing incidence trends
.
J Surg Oncol
2005
;
89
:
1
4
.
6.
Heath
M
,
Jaimes
N
,
Lemos
B
,
Mostaghimi
A
,
Wang
LC
,
Penas
PF
, et al
Clinical characteristics of Merkel cell carcinoma at diagnosis in 195 patients: the AEIOU features
.
J Am Acad Dermatol
2008
;
58
:
375
81
.
7.
Miller
RW
,
Rabkin
CS
. 
Merkel cell carcinoma and melanoma: etiological similarities and differences
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
1999
;
8
:
153
8
.
8.
Engels
EA
,
Frisch
M
,
Goedert
JJ
,
Biggar
RJ
,
Miller
RW
. 
Merkel cell carcinoma and HIV infection
.
Lancet
2002
;
359
:
497
8
.
9.
Albores-Saavedra
J
,
Batich
K
,
Chable-Montero
F
,
Sagy
N
,
Schwartz
AM
,
Henson
DE
. 
Merkel cell carcinoma demographics, morphology, and survival based on 3870 cases: a population based study
.
J Cutan Pathol
2010
;
37
:
20
7
.
10.
Lemos
B
,
Nghiem
P
. 
Merkel cell carcinoma: more deaths but still no pathway to blame
.
J Invest Dermatol
2007
;
127
:
2100
3
.
11.
Chan
JK
,
Suster
S
,
Wenig
BM
,
Tsang
WY
,
Chan
JB
,
Lau
AL
. 
Cytokeratin 20 immunoreactivity distinguishes Merkel cell (primary cutaneous neuroendocrine) carcinomas and salivary gland small cell carcinomas from small cell carcinomas of various sites
.
Am J Surg Pathol
1997
;
21
:
226
34
.
12.
Moll
R
,
Lowe
A
,
Laufer
J
,
Franke
WW
. 
Cytokeratin 20 in human carcinomas. A new histodiagnostic marker detected by monoclonal antibodies
.
Am J Pathol
1992
;
140
:
427
47
.
13.
O'Rourke
MG
,
Bell
JR
. 
Merkel cell tumor with spontaneous regression
.
J Dermatol Surg Oncol
1986
;
12
:
994
6
.
14.
Vandeven
N
,
Nghiem
P
. 
Complete spontaneous regression of Merkel cell carcinoma metastatic to the liver: did lifestyle modifications and dietary supplements play a role?
Glob Adv Health Med
2012
;
1
:
22
3
.
15.
Walsh
NM
. 
Complete spontaneous regression of Merkel cell carcinoma (1986–2016): a 30 year perspective
.
J Cutan Pathol
2016
;
43
:
1150
4
.
16.
Feng
H
,
Shuda
M
,
Chang
Y
,
Moore
PS
. 
Clonal integration of a polyomavirus in human Merkel cell carcinoma
.
Science
2008
;
319
:
1096
100
.
17.
Tolstov
YL
,
Pastrana
DV
,
Feng
H
,
Becker
JC
,
Jenkins
FJ
,
Moschos
S
, et al
Human Merkel cell polyomavirus infection II. MCV is a common human infection that can be detected by conformational capsid epitope immunoassays
.
Int J Cancer
2009
;
125
:
1250
6
.
18.
Borchert
S
,
Czech-Sioli
M
,
Neumann
F
,
Schmidt
C
,
Wimmer
P
,
Dobner
T
, et al
High-affinity Rb binding, p53 inhibition, subcellular localization, and transformation by wild-type or tumor-derived shortened Merkel cell polyomavirus large T antigens
.
J Virol
2014
;
88
:
3144
60
.
19.
Richards
KF
,
Guastafierro
A
,
Shuda
M
,
Toptan
T
,
Moore
PS
,
Chang
Y
. 
Merkel cell polyomavirus T antigens promote cell proliferation and inflammatory cytokine gene expression
.
J Gen Virol
2015
;
96
:
3532
44
.
20.
Cheng
J
,
Rozenblatt-Rosen
O
,
Paulson
KG
,
Nghiem
P
,
DeCaprio
JA
. 
Merkel cell polyomavirus large T antigen has growth-promoting and inhibitory activities
.
J Virol
2013
;
87
:
6118
26
.
21.
Kwun
HJ
,
Shuda
M
,
Feng
H
,
Camacho
CJ
,
Moore
PS
,
Chang
Y
. 
Merkel cell polyomavirus small T antigen controls viral replication and oncoprotein expression by targeting the cellular ubiquitin ligase SCFFbw7
.
Cell Host Microbe
2013
;
14
:
125
35
.
22.
Shuda
M
,
Kwun
HJ
,
Feng
H
,
Chang
Y
,
Moore
PS
. 
Human Merkel cell polyomavirus small T antigen is an oncoprotein targeting the 4E-BP1 translation regulator
.
J Clin Invest
2011
;
121
:
3623
34
.
23.
Shuda
M
,
Guastafierro
A
,
Geng
X
,
Shuda
Y
,
Ostrowski
SM
,
Lukianov
S
, et al
Merkel cell polyomavirus small T antigen induces cancer and embryonic Merkel cell proliferation in a transgenic mouse model
.
PLoS One
2015
;
10
:
e0142329
.
24.
Verhaegen
ME
,
Mangelberger
D
,
Harms
PW
,
Vozheiko
TD
,
Weick
JW
,
Wilbert
DM
, et al
Merkel cell polyomavirus small T antigen is oncogenic in transgenic mice
.
J Invest Dermatol
2015
;
135
:
1415
24
.
25.
Verhaegen
ME
,
Mangelberger
D
,
Harms
PW
,
Eberl
M
,
Wilbert
DM
,
Meireles
J
, et al
Merkel cell polyomavirus small T antigen initiates Merkel cell carcinoma-like tumor development in mice
.
Cancer Res
2017
;
77
:
3151
7
.
26.
Houben
R
,
Shuda
M
,
Weinkam
R
,
Schrama
D
,
Feng
H
,
Chang
Y
, et al
Merkel cell polyomavirus-infected Merkel cell carcinoma cells require expression of viral T antigens
.
J Virol
2010
;
84
:
7064
72
.
27.
Schrama
D
,
Hesbacher
S
,
Angermeyer
S
,
Schlosser
A
,
Haferkamp
S
,
Aue
A
, et al
Serine 220 phosphorylation of the Merkel cell polyomavirus large T antigen crucially supports growth of Merkel cell carcinoma cells
.
Int J Cancer
2016
;
138
:
1153
62
.
28.
Houben
R
,
Adam
C
,
Baeurle
A
,
Hesbacher
S
,
Grimm
J
,
Angermeyer
S
, et al
An intact retinoblastoma protein-binding site in Merkel cell polyomavirus large T antigen is required for promoting growth of Merkel cell carcinoma cells
.
Int J Cancer
2012
;
130
:
847
56
.
29.
Afanasiev
OK
,
Yelistratova
L
,
Miller
N
,
Nagase
K
,
Paulson
K
,
Iyer
JG
, et al
Merkel polyomavirus-specific T cells fluctuate with Merkel cell carcinoma burden and express therapeutically targetable PD-1 and Tim-3 exhaustion markers
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
5351
60
.
30.
Iyer
JG
,
Afanasiev
OK
,
McClurkan
C
,
Paulson
K
,
Nagase
K
,
Jing
L
, et al
Merkel cell polyomavirus-specific CD8(+) and CD4(+) T-cell responses identified in Merkel cell carcinomas and blood
.
Clin Cancer Res
2011
;
17
:
6671
80
.
31.
Lyngaa
R
,
Pedersen
NW
,
Schrama
D
,
Thrue
CA
,
Ibrani
D
,
Met
O
, et al
T-cell responses to oncogenic Merkel cell polyomavirus proteins distinguish patients with Merkel cell carcinoma from healthy donors
.
Clin Cancer Res
2014
;
20
:
1768
78
.
32.
Miller
NJ
,
Church
CD
,
Dong
L
,
Crispin
D
,
Fitzgibbon
MP
,
Lachance
K
, et al
Tumor-infiltrating Merkel cell polyomavirus-specific T cells are diverse and associated with improved patient survival
.
Cancer Immunol Res
2017
;
5
:
137
47
.
33.
Paulson
KG
,
Carter
JJ
,
Johnson
LG
,
Cahill
KW
,
Iyer
JG
,
Schrama
D
, et al
Antibodies to Merkel cell polyomavirus T antigen oncoproteins reflect tumor burden in Merkel cell carcinoma patients
.
Cancer Res
2010
;
70
:
8388
97
.
34.
Samimi
M
,
Molet
L
,
Fleury
M
,
Laude
H
,
Carlotti
A
,
Gardair
C
, et al
Prognostic value of antibodies to Merkel cell polyomavirus T antigens and VP1 protein in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma
.
Br J Dermatol
2016
;
174
:
813
22
.
35.
Touze
A
,
Le Bidre
E
,
Laude
H
,
Fleury
MJ
,
Cazal
R
,
Arnold
F
, et al
High levels of antibodies against Merkel cell polyomavirus identify a subset of patients with Merkel cell carcinoma with better clinical outcome
.
J Clin Oncol
2011
;
29
:
1612
9
.
36.
Paulson
KG
,
Lewis
CW
,
Redman
MW
,
Simonson
WT
,
Lisberg
A
,
Ritter
D
, et al
Viral oncoprotein antibodies as a marker for recurrence of Merkel cell carcinoma: a prospective validation study
.
Cancer
2017
;
123
:
1464
74
.
37.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Merkel cell carcinoma
. In:
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Version 1.2018 ed
:
Fort Washington, PA
:
National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc
; 
2017
.
38.
Nishino
M
,
Giobbie-Hurder
A
,
Ramaiya
NH
,
Hodi
FS
. 
Response assessment in metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab and bevacizumab: CT tumor size and density as markers for response and outcome
.
J Immunother Cancer
2014
;
2
:
40
.
39.
Rodig
SJ
,
Cheng
J
,
Wardzala
J
,
DoRosario
A
,
Scanlon
JJ
,
Laga
AC
, et al
Improved detection suggests all Merkel cell carcinomas harbor Merkel polyomavirus
.
J Clin Invest
2012
;
122
:
4645
53
.
40.
Wong
SQ
,
Waldeck
K
,
Vergara
IA
,
Schroder
J
,
Madore
J
,
Wilmott
JS
, et al
UV-associated mutations underlie the etiology of MCV-negative Merkel cell carcinomas
.
Cancer Res
2015
;
75
:
5228
34
.
41.
Harms
PW
,
Vats
P
,
Verhaegen
ME
,
Robinson
DR
,
Wu
YM
,
Dhanasekaran
SM
, et al
The distinctive mutational spectra of polyomavirus-negative Merkel cell carcinoma
.
Cancer Res
2015
;
75
:
3720
7
.
42.
Goh
G
,
Walradt
T
,
Markarov
V
,
Blom
A
,
Riaz
N
,
Doumani
R
, et al
Mutational landscape of MCPyV-positive and MCPyV-negative Merkel cell carcinomas with implications for immunotherapy
.
Oncotarget
2016
;
7
:
3403
15
.
43.
Garneski
KM
,
Warcola
AH
,
Feng
Q
,
Kiviat
NB
,
Leonard
JH
,
Nghiem
P
. 
Merkel cell polyomavirus is more frequently present in North American than Australian Merkel cell carcinoma tumors
.
J Invest Dermatol
2009
;
129
:
246
8
.
44.
Iyer
JG
,
Blom
A
,
Doumani
R
,
Lewis
C
,
Tarabadkar
ES
,
Anderson
A
, et al
Response rates and durability of chemotherapy among 62 patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma
.
Cancer Med
2016
;
5
:
2294
301
.
45.
Cowey
CL
,
Mahnke
L
,
Espirito
J
,
Helwig
C
,
Oksen
D
,
Bharmal
M
. 
Real-world treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma treated with chemotherapy in the USA
.
Future Oncol
2017
;
13
:
1699
710
.
46.
Becker
JC
,
Lorenz
E
,
Ugurel
S
,
Eigentler
TK
,
Kiecker
F
,
Pfohler
C
, et al
Evaluation of real-world treatment outcomes in patients with distant metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma following second-line chemotherapy in Europe
.
Oncotarget
2017
;
8
:
79731
41
.
47.
Pommier
Y
,
Sordet
O
,
Antony
S
,
Hayward
RL
,
Kohn
KW
. 
Apoptosis defects and chemotherapy resistance: molecular interaction maps and networks
.
Oncogene
2004
;
23
:
2934
49
.
48.
Paulson
KG
,
Iyer
JG
,
Tegeder
AR
,
Thibodeau
R
,
Schelter
J
,
Koba
S
, et al
Transcriptome-wide studies of Merkel cell carcinoma and validation of intratumoral CD8+ lymphocyte invasion as an independent predictor of survival
.
J Clin Oncol
2011
;
29
:
1539
46
.
49.
Lipson
EJ
,
Vincent
JG
,
Loyo
M
,
Kagohara
LT
,
Luber
BS
,
Wang
H
, et al
PD-L1 expression in the Merkel cell carcinoma microenvironment: association with inflammation, Merkel cell polyomavirus and overall survival
.
Cancer Immunol Res
2013
;
1
:
54
63
.
50.
Nghiem
PT
,
Bhatia
S
,
Lipson
EJ
,
Kudchadkar
RR
,
Miller
NJ
,
Annamalai
L
, et al
PD-1 blockade with pembrolizumab in advanced Merkel-cell carcinoma
.
N Engl J Med
2016
;
374
:
2542
52
.
51.
Merkel cell carcinoma. In:
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Version 1.2017 ed
.
Fort Washington (PA)
:
National Comprehensive Cancer Network
; 
2016
.
52.
Topalian
SL
,
Bhatia
S
,
Hollebecque
A
,
Awada
A
,
De Boer
JP
,
Kudchadkar
RR
, et al
Non-comparative, open-label, multiple cohort, phase 1/2 study to evaluate nivolumab (NIVO) in patients with virus-associated tumors (CheckMate 358): efficacy and safety in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) [abstract]
. In:
Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017
; 
2017 Apr 1–5
;
Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA)
:
AACR
; 2017.
Abstract nr CT074
.
53.
Kaufman
HL
,
Russell
JS
,
Hamid
O
,
Bhatia
S
,
Terheyden
P
,
D'Angelo
SP
, et al
Durable responses to avelumab (anti-PD-L1) in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma progressed after chemotherapy: 1-year efficacy update [abstract]
. In:
Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017
; 
2017 Apr 1–5
;
Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA)
:
AACR
; 2017.
Abstract nr CT079
.
54.
Kaufman
HL
,
Russell
J
,
Hamid
O
,
Bhatia
S
,
Terheyden
P
,
D'Angelo
SP
, et al
Avelumab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: a multicentre, single-group, open-label, phase 2 trial
.
Lancet Oncol
2016
;
17
:
1374
85
.
55.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
. 
FDA approves first treatment for rare form of skin cancer
; 
2017
.
Available from:
https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm548278.htm.
56.
Robert
C
,
Schachter
J
,
Long
GV
,
Arance
A
,
Grob
JJ
,
Mortier
L
, et al
Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2015
;
372
:
2521
32
.
57.
El Osta
B
,
Hu
F
,
Sadek
R
,
Chintalapally
R
,
Tang
SC
. 
Not all immune-checkpoint inhibitors are created equal: meta-analysis and systematic review of immune-related adverse events in cancer trials
.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
2017
;
119
:
1
12
.
58.
DePry
JL
,
Reed
KB
,
Cook-Norris
RH
,
Brewer
JD
. 
Iatrogenic immunosuppression and cutaneous malignancy
.
Clin Dermatol
2011
;
29
:
602
13
.
59.
Menzies
AM
,
Johnson
DB
,
Ramanujam
S
,
Atkinson
VG
,
Wong
ANM
,
Park
JJ
, et al
Anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with advanced melanoma and preexisting autoimmune disorders or major toxicity with ipilimumab
.
Ann Oncol
2017
;
28
:
368
76
.
60.
Bhatia
S
,
Ibrani
D
,
Vandeven
N
,
Miller
N
,
Shinohara
M
,
Byrd
D
, et al
Pilot study of intratumoral G100, toll-like receptor-4 (TLR4) agonist, therapy in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC)
.
J Clin Oncol
34
:
15s
,
2016 (suppl; abstr 3021)
.
61.
Bhatia
S
,
Iyer
J
,
Ibrani
D
,
Blom
A
,
Byrd
D
,
Parvathaneni
U
, et al
Intratumoral delivery of interleukin-12 DNA via in vivo electroporation leads to regression of injected and non-injected tumors in Merkel cell carcinoma: final results of a phase 2 study
.
Eur J Cancer
2015
;
51
:
S104
.
62.
Paulson
KG
,
Tegeder
A
,
Willmes
C
,
Iyer
JG
,
Afanasiev
OK
,
Schrama
D
, et al
Downregulation of MHC-I expression is prevalent but reversible in Merkel cell carcinoma
.
Cancer Immunol Res
2014
;
2
:
1071
9
.
63.
Ritter
C
,
Fan
K
,
Paschen
A
,
Reker Hardrup
S
,
Ferrone
S
,
Nghiem
P
, et al
Epigenetic priming restores the HLA class-I antigen processing machinery expression in Merkel cell carcinoma
.
Sci Rep
2017
;
7
:
2290
.
64.
Bhatia
S
,
Burgess
M
,
Zhang
H
,
Lee
T
,
Klingemann
H
,
Soon-Shiong
P
, et al
Adoptive cellular therapy (ACT) with allogeneic activated natural killer (aNK) cells in patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC): preliminary results of a phase II trial
.
National Harbor (MD)
: NantKwest; 
2016
.
Available from:
https://nantkwest.com/sitc-2016-ank-mcc/.
65.
Chapuis
AG
,
Afanasiev
OK
,
Iyer
JG
,
Paulson
KG
,
Parvathaneni
U
,
Hwang
JH
, et al
Regression of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma following transfer of polyomavirus-specific T cells and therapies capable of re-inducing HLA class-I
.
Cancer Immunol Res
2014
;
2
:
27
36
.
66.
Paulson
KG
,
Perdicchio
M
,
Kulikauskas
R
,
Wagener
F
,
Church
CD
,
Bui
K
, et al
Augmentation of adoptive T-cell therapy for Merkel cell carcinoma with avelumab
.
J Clin Oncol
35
:
15s
, 
2017
(
suppl; abstr 3044
).
67.
Andtbacka
RH
,
Kaufman
HL
,
Collichio
F
,
Amatruda
T
,
Senzer
N
,
Chesney
J
, et al
Talimogene laherparepvec improves durable response rate in patients with advanced melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2015
;
33
:
2780
8
.
68.
Chen
DS
,
Mellman
I
. 
Elements of cancer immunity and the cancer-immune set point
.
Nature
2017
;
541
:
321
30
.
69.
Taube
JM
,
Klein
A
,
Brahmer
JR
,
Xu
H
,
Pan
X
,
Kim
JH
, et al
Association of PD-1, PD-1 ligands, and other features of the tumor immune microenvironment with response to anti-PD-1 therapy
.
Clin Cancer Res
2014
;
20
:
5064
74
.
70.
Fusi
A
,
Festino
L
,
Botti
G
,
Masucci
G
,
Melero
I
,
Lorigan
P
, et al
PD-L1 expression as a potential predictive biomarker
.
Lancet Oncol
2015
;
16
:
1285
7
.
71.
Becker
JC
,
Houben
R
,
Ugurel
S
,
Trefzer
U
,
Pfohler
C
,
Schrama
D
. 
MC polyomavirus is frequently present in Merkel cell carcinoma of European patients
.
J Invest Dermatol
2009
;
129
:
248
50
.
72.
Kassem
A
,
Schopflin
A
,
Diaz
C
,
Weyers
W
,
Stickeler
E
,
Werner
M
, et al
Frequent detection of Merkel cell polyomavirus in human Merkel cell carcinomas and identification of a unique deletion in the VP1 gene
.
Cancer Res
2008
;
68
:
5009
13
.
73.
Mangana
J
,
Dziunycz
P
,
Kerl
K
,
Dummer
R
,
Cozzio
A
. 
Prevalence of Merkel cell polyomavirus among Swiss Merkel cell carcinoma patients
.
Dermatology
2010
;
221
:
184
8
.
74.
Schmitt
M
,
Wieland
U
,
Kreuter
A
,
Pawlita
M
. 
C-terminal deletions of Merkel cell polyomavirus large T-antigen, a highly specific surrogate marker for virally induced malignancy
.
Int J Cancer
2012
;
131
:
2863
8
.
75.
Shuda
M
,
Feng
H
,
Kwun
HJ
,
Rosen
ST
,
Gjoerup
O
,
Moore
PS
, et al
T antigen mutations are a human tumor-specific signature for Merkel cell polyomavirus
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2008
;
105
:
16272
7
.
76.
D'Angelo
SP
,
Russell
J
,
Hassel
JC
,
Lebbe
C
,
Chmielowski
B
,
Rabinowits
G
, et al
First-line (1L) avelumab treatment in patients (pts) with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC): preliminary data from an ongoing study
.
J Clin Oncol
35
:
15s
, 
2017
(
suppl; abstr 9530
).