Interventions for mycosis fungoides.

BACKGROUND: Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a malignant, chronic disease initially affecting the skin. Several therapies are available, which may induce clinical remission for a time. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012: we wanted to assess new trials, some of which investigated new interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for MF in all stages of the disease. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched 2 trials registries for additional references. For adverse event outcomes, we undertook separate searches in MEDLINE in April, July and November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of local or systemic interventions for MF in adults with any stage of the disease compared with either another local or systemic intervention or with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were improvement in health-related quality of life as defined by participants, and common adverse effects of the treatments. Key secondary outcomes were complete response (CR), defined as complete disappearance of all clinical evidence of disease, and objective response rate (ORR), defined as proportion of patients with a partial or complete response. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence and considered comparisons of psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA) light treatment as most important because this is first-line treatment for MF in most guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 20 RCTs (1369 participants) covering a wide range of interventions. The following were assessed as either treatments or comparators: imiquimod, peldesine, hypericin, mechlorethamine, nitrogen mustard and intralesional injections of interferon-α (IFN-α) (topical applications); PUVA, extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP: photochemotherapy), and visible light (light applications); acitretin, bexarotene, lenalidomide, methotrexate and vorinostat (oral agents); brentuximab vedotin; denileukin diftitox; mogamulizumab; chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, etoposide, and vincristine; a combination of chemotherapy with electron beam radiation; subcutaneous injection of IFN-α; and intramuscular injections of active transfer factor (parenteral systemics). Thirteen trials used an active comparator, five were placebo-controlled, and two compared an active operator to observation only. In 14 trials, participants had MF in clinical stages IA to IIB. All participants were treated in secondary and tertiary care settings, mainly in Europe, North America or Australia. Trials recruited both men and women, with more male participants overall. Trial duration varied from four weeks to 12 months, with one longer-term study lasting more than six years. We judged 16 trials as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, most commonly performance bias (blinding of participants and investigators), attrition bias and reporting bias. None of our key comparisons measured quality of life, and the two studies that did presented no usable data. Eighteen studies reported common adverse effects of the treatments. Adverse effects ranged from mild symptoms to lethal complications depending upon the treatment type. More aggressive treatments like systemic chemotherapy generally resulted in more severe adverse effects. In the included studies, CR rates ranged from 0% to 83% (median 31%), and ORR ranged from 0% to 88% (median 47%). Five trials assessed PUVA treatment, alone or combined, summarised below. There may be little to no difference between intralesional IFN-α and PUVA compared with PUVA alone for 24 to 52 weeks in CR (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.31; 2 trials; 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). Common adverse events and ORR were not measured. One small cross-over trial found once-monthly ECP for six months may be less effective than twice-weekly PUVA for three months, reporting CR in two of eight participants and ORR in six of eight participants after PUVA, compared with no CR or ORR after ECP (very low-certainty evidence). Some participants reported mild nausea after PUVA but no numerical data were given. One participant in the ECP group withdrew due to hypotension. However, we are unsure of the results due to very low-certainty evidence. One trial comparing bexarotene plus PUVA versus PUVA alone for up to 16 weeks reported one case of photosensitivity in the bexarotene plus PUVA group compared to none in the PUVA-alone group (87 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between bexarotene plus PUVA and PUVA alone in CR (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.80) and ORR (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.44) (93 participants; low-certainty evidence). One trial comparing subcutaneous IFN-α injections combined with either acitretin or PUVA for up to 48 weeks or until CR indicated there may be little to no difference in the common IFN-α adverse effect of flu-like symptoms (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.88; 82 participants). There may be lower CR with IFN-α and acitretin compared with IFN-α and PUVA (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.84; 82 participants) (both outcomes: low-certainty evidence). This trial did not measure ORR. One trial comparing PUVA maintenance treatment to no maintenance treatment, in participants who had already had CR, did report common adverse effects. However, the distribution was not evaluable. CR and OR were not assessable. The range of treatment options meant that rare adverse effects consequently occurred in a variety of organs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ​​There is a lack of high-certainty evidence to support decision making in the treatment of MF. Because of substantial heterogeneity in design, missing data, small sample sizes, and low methodological quality, the comparative safety and efficacy of these interventions cannot be reliably established on the basis of the included RCTs. PUVA is commonly recommended as first-line treatment for MF, and we did not find evidence to challenge this recommendation. There was an absence of evidence to support the use of intralesional IFN-α or bexarotene in people receiving PUVA and an absence of evidence to support the use of acitretin or ECP for treating MF. Future trials should compare the safety and efficacy of treatments to PUVA, as the current standard of care, and should measure quality of life and common adverse effects.

Interventions for mycosis fungoides.

BACKGROUND: Mycosis fungoides is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a malignant, chronic disease initially affecting the skin. Several therapies are available, which may induce clinical remission for a time. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for mycosis fungoides in all stages of the disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to January 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2010), and LILACS (from 1982). We also checked reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched online trials registries for further references to unpublished trials and undertook a separate search for adverse effects of interventions for mycosis fungoides in non-RCTs in MEDLINE in May 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for mycosis fungoides in people with any stage of the disease. At least 90% of participants in the trials must have been diagnosed with mycosis fungoides (Alibert-Bazin-type). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed eligibility and methodological quality for each study and carried out data extraction. We resolved any disagreement by discussion. Primary outcomes were the impact on quality of life and the safety of interventions. When available, we reported on our secondary outcomes, which were the improvement or clearance of skin lesions, disease-free intervals, survival rates, relapse rates, and rare adverse effects. When possible, we combined homogeneous studies for meta-analysis. We used The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the internal validity of all included studies in six different domains. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 14 RCTs involving 675 participants, covering a wide range of interventions. Eleven of the included trials assessed participants in clinical stages IA to IIB only (please see Table 1 for definitions of these stages).Internal validity was considerably low in studies with a high or unclear risk of bias. The main reasons for this were low methodological quality or missing data, even after we contacted the study authors, and a mean dropout rate of 26% (0% to 72%). Study size was generally small with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 103 participants. Only one study provided a long enough follow-up for reliable survival analysis.Included studies assessed topical treatments, such as imiquimod, peldesine, hypericin, nitrogen mustard, as well as intralesional injections of interferon-α (IFN-α). The light therapies investigated included psoralen plus ultraviolet A light (PUVA), extracorporeal photopheresis (photochemotherapy), and visible light. Oral treatments included acitretin, bexarotene, and methotrexate. Treatment with parenteral systemic agents consisted of denileukin diftitox; a combination of chemotherapy and electron beam radiation; and intramuscular injections of active transfer factor. Nine studies evaluated therapies by using an active comparator; five were placebo-controlled RCTs.Twelve studies reported on common adverse effects, while only two assessed quality of life. None of these studies compared the health-related quality of life of participants undergoing different treatments. Most of the reported adverse effects were attributed to the interventions. Systemic treatments, and here in particular a combined therapeutic regimen of chemotherapy and electron beam, bexarotene, or denileukin diftitox, showed more adverse effects than topical or skin-directed treatments.In the included studies, clearance rates ranged from 0% to 83%, and improvement ranged from 0% to 88%. The meta-analysis combining the results of 2 trials comparing the effect of IFN-α and PUVA versus PUVA alone showed no significant difference in the relative risk of clearance: 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.31). None of the included studies demonstrated a significant increase in disease-free intervals, relapse, or overall survival. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified trial evidence for a range of different topical and systemic interventions for mycosis fungoides. Because of substantial heterogeneity in design, small sample sizes, and low methodological quality, the comparative safety and efficacy of these interventions cannot be established on the basis of the included RCTs. Taking into account the possible serious adverse effects and the limited availability of efficacy data, topical and skin-directed treatments are recommended first, especially in the early stages of disease. More aggressive therapeutic regimens may show improvement or clearance of lesions, but they also result in more adverse effects; therefore, they are to be considered with caution. Larger studies with comparable, clearly-defined end points for all stages of mycosis fungoides, and a focus on safety, quality of life, and duration of remission as part of the outcome measures, are necessary.