Kevin Phan1,2, Vignesh Ramachandran3, Hiva Fassihi4, Deshan F Sebaratnam1,2. 1. Department of Dermatology, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, Sydney, Australia. 2. South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Sydney, Australia. 3. Medical Student, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 4. St John's Institute for Dermatology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Importance: Phototherapy is one of the mainstays of treatment for early mycosis fungoides (MF). The most common modalities are psoralen-UV-A (PUVA) and narrowband UV-B (NBUVB). Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of PUVA vs NBUVB in early-stage MF. Data Sources: A systematic review was performed by searching Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, American College of Physicians ACP Journal Club, and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness from inception to March 30, 2018. UV A, PUVA, mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, UV B, and UVB were used as either key words or MeSH terms. Study Selection: Studies of cohorts with histologically confirmed early-stage MF, defined as stages IA, IB, and IIA, that compared PUVA vs NBUVB, had at least 10 patients in each comparator group, and reported outcomes of response to therapy. Exclusion criteria were studies with patients with stage IIB or higher MF, pediatric patients, fewer than 10 in each comparator group, noncomparative studies, case reports, and abstract studies. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Data were pooled using a random-effects model with odds ratio (OR) as effect size. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were complete response rate, partial response rate, disease recurrence, and adverse effects, including erythema, nausea, pruritus, phototoxic effects, dyspepsia, and pain. Results: Seven studies were included with a total of 778 patients (405 of 724 [55.9%] men; mean age, 52 years); 527 were treated with PUVA and 251 with NBUVB. Most of the included studies were of poor to moderate quality. Any response was found in 479 of the 527 (90.9%) patients treated with PUVA vs 220 of 251 (87.6%) treated with NBUVB (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.84-2.34; P = .20). Complete response was found in 389 of 527 (73.8%) patients who received PUVA vs 156 of 251 (62.2%) who received NBUVB, which was statistically significant (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.02-2.76; P = .04). Partial response was similar (90 of 501 [18.0%] vs 64 of 233 [27.5%]; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.33-1.04; P = .07). No significant difference was found between PUVA and NBUVB in terms of adverse effects of erythema (38 of 527 [7.2%] vs 17 of 251 [6.7%]; P = .54), nausea (10 of 527 [1.9%] vs 3 of 251 [1.2%]; P = .72), pruritus (2 of 527 [0.4%] vs 4 of 251 [1.7%]; P = .26), phototoxic effects (7 of 527 [1.4%] vs 2 of 251 [0.9%]; P = .72), dyspepsia (6 of 527 [1.2%] vs 0 of 251 [0%]; P = .59), or pain (0 of 527 [0%] vs 2 of 251 [0.9%]; P = .50). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that PUVA is a potential alternative to NBUVB in the management of early-stage MF. These findings have implications for clinicians involved in the management of early-stage MF.
Importance: Phototherapy is one of the mainstays of treatment for early mycosis fungoides (MF). The most common modalities are psoralen-UV-A (PUVA) and narrowband UV-B (NBUVB). Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of PUVA vs NBUVB in early-stage MF. Data Sources: A systematic review was performed by searching Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, American College of Physicians ACP Journal Club, and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness from inception to March 30, 2018. UV A, PUVA, mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, UV B, and UVB were used as either key words or MeSH terms. Study Selection: Studies of cohorts with histologically confirmed early-stage MF, defined as stages IA, IB, and IIA, that compared PUVA vs NBUVB, had at least 10 patients in each comparator group, and reported outcomes of response to therapy. Exclusion criteria were studies with patients with stage IIB or higher MF, pediatric patients, fewer than 10 in each comparator group, noncomparative studies, case reports, and abstract studies. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Data were pooled using a random-effects model with odds ratio (OR) as effect size. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were complete response rate, partial response rate, disease recurrence, and adverse effects, including erythema, nausea, pruritus, phototoxic effects, dyspepsia, and pain. Results: Seven studies were included with a total of 778 patients (405 of 724 [55.9%] men; mean age, 52 years); 527 were treated with PUVA and 251 with NBUVB. Most of the included studies were of poor to moderate quality. Any response was found in 479 of the 527 (90.9%) patients treated with PUVA vs 220 of 251 (87.6%) treated with NBUVB (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.84-2.34; P = .20). Complete response was found in 389 of 527 (73.8%) patients who received PUVA vs 156 of 251 (62.2%) who received NBUVB, which was statistically significant (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.02-2.76; P = .04). Partial response was similar (90 of 501 [18.0%] vs 64 of 233 [27.5%]; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.33-1.04; P = .07). No significant difference was found between PUVA and NBUVB in terms of adverse effects of erythema (38 of 527 [7.2%] vs 17 of 251 [6.7%]; P = .54), nausea (10 of 527 [1.9%] vs 3 of 251 [1.2%]; P = .72), pruritus (2 of 527 [0.4%] vs 4 of 251 [1.7%]; P = .26), phototoxic effects (7 of 527 [1.4%] vs 2 of 251 [0.9%]; P = .72), dyspepsia (6 of 527 [1.2%] vs 0 of 251 [0%]; P = .59), or pain (0 of 527 [0%] vs 2 of 251 [0.9%]; P = .50). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that PUVA is a potential alternative to NBUVB in the management of early-stage MF. These findings have implications for clinicians involved in the management of early-stage MF.
Authors: S Whittaker; P Ortiz; R Dummer; A Ranki; B Hasan; B Meulemans; S Gellrich; R Knobler; R Stadler; M Karrasch Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Elise A Olsen; Emilia Hodak; Thomas Anderson; Joi B Carter; Marsha Henderson; Kevin Cooper; Henry W Lim Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Arfenya E Karamova; Dmitry A Verbenko; Anastasiia A Vorontsova; Maryana B Zhilova; Alexandr A Nikonorov; Eugenia R Gatiatulina; Ludmila F Znamenskaya; Alexey A Kubanov Journal: J Oncol Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 4.375
Authors: P Quaglino; H M Prince; R Cowan; M Vermeer; E Papadavid; M Bagot; O Servitjie; E Berti; E Guenova; R Stadler; C Querfeld; A M Busschots; E Hodak; A Patsatsi; J Sanches; M Maule; J Yoo; M Kevin; P Fava; S Ribero; L Zocchi; M Rubatto; M T Fierro; U Wehkamp; M Marshalko; C Mitteldorf; O Akilov; P Ortiz-Romero; T Estrach; L Vakeva; P A Enz; M Wobser; M Bayne; C Jonak; M Rubeta; A Forbes; A Bates; M Battistella; R Amel-Kashipaz; B Vydianath; A Combalia; E Georgiou; E Hauben; E K Hong; M Jost; R Knobler; I Amitay-Laish; D Miyashiro; J Cury-Martins; X Martinez; C Muniesa; H Prag-Naveh; A Stratigos; V Nikolaou; K Quint; C Ram-Wolff; K Rieger; R Stranzenbach; Á Szepesi; S Alberti-Violetti; E Felicity; L Cerroni; W Kempf; S Whittaker; R Willemze; Y Kim; J J Scarisbrick Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 9.302