OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel mechlorethamine hydrochloride, 0.02%, gel in mycosis fungoides. DESIGN Randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, multicenter trial comparing mechlorethamine, 0.02%, gel with mechlorethamine, 0.02%, compounded ointment. Mechlorethamine was applied once daily for up to 12 months. Tumor response and adverse events were assessed every month between months 1 and 6 and every 2 months between months 7 and 12. Serum drug levels were evaluated in a subset of patients. SETTING:Academic medical or cancer centers. PATIENTS: In total, 260 patients with stage IA to IIA mycosis fungoides who had not usedtopical mechlorethamine within 2 years and were naive to prior use of topical carmustine therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response rates of all the patients based on a primary clinical end point (Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity) and secondary clinical end points (Modified Severity-Weighted Assessment Tool and time-to-response analyses). RESULTS:Response rates for mechlorethamine gel vs ointment were 58.5% vs 47.7% by the Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity and 46.9% vs 46.2% by the Modified Severity-Weighted Assessment Tool. By the Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity, the ratio of gel response rate to ointment response rate was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.97-1.55), which met the prespecified criterion for noninferiority. Time-to-response analyses demonstrated superiority of mechlorethamine gel to ointment (P< .01). No drug-related serious adverse events were seen. Approximately 20.3% of enrolled patients in the gel treatment arm and 17.3% of enrolled patients in the ointment treatment arm withdrew because of drug-related skin irritation. No systemic absorption of the study medication was detected. CONCLUSION: The use of a novel mechlorethamine, 0.02%, gel in the treatment of patients with mycosis fungoides is effective and safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00168064.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel mechlorethamine hydrochloride, 0.02%, gel in mycosis fungoides. DESIGN Randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, multicenter trial comparing mechlorethamine, 0.02%, gel with mechlorethamine, 0.02%, compounded ointment. Mechlorethamine was applied once daily for up to 12 months. Tumor response and adverse events were assessed every month between months 1 and 6 and every 2 months between months 7 and 12. Serum drug levels were evaluated in a subset of patients. SETTING: Academic medical or cancer centers. PATIENTS: In total, 260 patients with stage IA to IIA mycosis fungoides who had not used topical mechlorethamine within 2 years and were naive to prior use of topical carmustine therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response rates of all the patients based on a primary clinical end point (Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity) and secondary clinical end points (Modified Severity-Weighted Assessment Tool and time-to-response analyses). RESULTS: Response rates for mechlorethamine gel vs ointment were 58.5% vs 47.7% by the Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity and 46.9% vs 46.2% by the Modified Severity-Weighted Assessment Tool. By the Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity, the ratio of gel response rate to ointment response rate was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.97-1.55), which met the prespecified criterion for noninferiority. Time-to-response analyses demonstrated superiority of mechlorethamine gel to ointment (P< .01). No drug-related serious adverse events were seen. Approximately 20.3% of enrolled patients in the gel treatment arm and 17.3% of enrolled patients in the ointment treatment arm withdrew because of drug-related skin irritation. No systemic absorption of the study medication was detected. CONCLUSION: The use of a novel mechlorethamine, 0.02%, gel in the treatment of patients with mycosis fungoides is effective and safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00168064.
Authors: Elise A Olsen; Sean Whittaker; Youn H Kim; Madeleine Duvic; H Miles Prince; Stuart R Lessin; Gary S Wood; Rein Willemze; Marie-France Demierre; Nicola Pimpinelli; Maria Grazia Bernengo; Pablo L Ortiz-Romero; Martine Bagot; Teresa Estrach; Joan Guitart; Robert Knobler; José Antonio Sanches; Keiji Iwatsuki; Makoto Sugaya; Reinhard Dummer; Mark Pittelkow; Richard Hoppe; Sareeta Parker; Larisa Geskin; Lauren Pinter-Brown; Michael Girardi; Günter Burg; Annamari Ranki; Maartan Vermeer; Steven Horwitz; Peter Heald; Steve Rosen; Lorenzo Cerroni; Brigette Dreno; Eric C Vonderheid Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nicola Pimpinelli; Elise A Olsen; Marco Santucci; Eric Vonderheid; Andreas C Haeffner; Seth Stevens; Guenter Burg; Lorenzo Cerroni; Brigitte Dreno; Earl Glusac; Joan Guitart; Peter W Heald; Werner Kempf; Robert Knobler; Stuart Lessin; Christian Sander; Bruce S Smoller; Gladys Telang; Sean Whittaker; Keiji Iwatsuki; Erik Obitz; Masahiro Takigawa; Maria L Turner; Gary S Wood Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Joselin D Tacastacas; Derek V Chan; Sean Carlson; Stanton L Gerson; Afshin Dowlati; Pingfu Fu; Kurt Lu; Sarah Groft; Julie Rosenjack; Kord Honda; Thomas S McCormick; Kevin D Cooper Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Jose R Cortes; Christina C Patrone; Stuart Aidan Quinn; Yuhan Gu; Marta Sanchez-Martin; Adam Mackey; Anisha J Cooke; Bobby B Shih; Anouchka P Laurent; Megan H Trager; Adolfo A Ferrando; Larisa J Geskin; Teresa Palomero Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 7.590
Authors: Christiane Querfeld; Theresa Pacheco; Bradley Haverkos; Gary Binder; James Angello; Brian Poligone Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-07-02