Christiane Querfeld1, Julia J Scarisbrick2, Chalid Assaf3,4, Emmanuella Guenova5,6, Martine Bagot7, Pablo Luis Ortiz-Romero8, Pietro Quaglino9, Erminio Bonizzoni10, Emmilia Hodak11. 1. City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California, USA. 2. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Helios Klinikum Krefeld, Krefeld, Germany. 4. Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 5. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 6. Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 7. Department of Dermatology, AP-HP, Université de Paris, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France. 8. Hospital 12 de Octubre, Institute I+12, CIBERONC, Medical School, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. 9. Department of Medical Sciences, Section of Dermatology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 10. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community, Section of Medical Statistics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 11. Department of Dermatology, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common form of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Patients can be treated using chlormethine gel, a skin-directed therapy developed and approved for MF. In the randomized, controlled 201 trial, chlormethine gel was found to be noninferior to equal-strength chlormethine ointment. However, there remains a need to gain more insight into outcome measures after treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to further investigate the potential of chlormethine gel treatment through a novel post hoc analysis of the 201 trial data (NCT00168064). METHODS: Patients were randomized to chlormethine gel or ointment; response assessments included Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity (CAILS) and total body surface area (BSA). In this post hoc analysis, additional subgroup response analyses were performed for stage IA/IB-IIA MF. Very good partial response (75 to <100% improvement) was included as an additional response category. Time to response and overall response trends were determined. Finally, multivariate time-to-event analyses were performed to determine whether associations were observed between treatment frequency, response, and adverse events. RESULTS: Response rates were significantly higher for patients with stage IA MF for CAILS (intent-to-treat [p = 0.0014] and efficacy-evaluable [EE; p = 0.0036] populations) and BSA (EE population [p = 0.0488]) treated with gel versus ointment. Time to first CAILS response and response trends were better for all-stage gel-treated patients overall. No association was seen between treatment frequency and response or occurrence of adverse events at the following visit. An association was observed between the occurrence of contact dermatitis and improved clinical response at the next visit (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis shows that treatment with chlormethine gel may result in higher and faster response rates compared with chlormethine ointment, which confirms and expands results reported in the original analysis. The incidence of contact dermatitis may potentially be a prognostic indicator for clinical response; this needs to be confirmed in a larger population. The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common form of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Patients can be treated using chlormethine gel, a skin-directed therapy developed and approved for MF. In the randomized, controlled 201 trial, chlormethine gel was found to be noninferior to equal-strength chlormethine ointment. However, there remains a need to gain more insight into outcome measures after treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to further investigate the potential of chlormethine gel treatment through a novel post hoc analysis of the 201 trial data (NCT00168064). METHODS: Patients were randomized to chlormethine gel or ointment; response assessments included Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity (CAILS) and total body surface area (BSA). In this post hoc analysis, additional subgroup response analyses were performed for stage IA/IB-IIA MF. Very good partial response (75 to <100% improvement) was included as an additional response category. Time to response and overall response trends were determined. Finally, multivariate time-to-event analyses were performed to determine whether associations were observed between treatment frequency, response, and adverse events. RESULTS: Response rates were significantly higher for patients with stage IA MF for CAILS (intent-to-treat [p = 0.0014] and efficacy-evaluable [EE; p = 0.0036] populations) and BSA (EE population [p = 0.0488]) treated with gel versus ointment. Time to first CAILS response and response trends were better for all-stage gel-treated patients overall. No association was seen between treatment frequency and response or occurrence of adverse events at the following visit. An association was observed between the occurrence of contact dermatitis and improved clinical response at the next visit (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis shows that treatment with chlormethine gel may result in higher and faster response rates compared with chlormethine ointment, which confirms and expands results reported in the original analysis. The incidence of contact dermatitis may potentially be a prognostic indicator for clinical response; this needs to be confirmed in a larger population. The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
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: E Estève; M Bagot; P Joly; P Souteyrand; M Beylot-Barry; L Vaillant; M Delaunay; M F Avril; L Laroche; F Grange; E Thomine; J Wechsler Journal: Arch Dermatol Date: 1999-11
Authors: Thorbjørn Krejsgaard; Lise M Lindahl; Nigel P Mongan; Mariusz A Wasik; Ivan V Litvinov; Lars Iversen; Erik Langhoff; Anders Woetmann; Niels Odum Journal: Semin Immunopathol Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 9.623
Authors: Ellen J Kim; Joan Guitart; Christiane Querfeld; Michael Girardi; Amy Musiek; Oleg E Akilov; James T Angello; William L Bailey; Larisa J Geskin Journal: Am J Clin Dermatol Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 7.403