Topical Chemotherapy in Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma: Positive Results of a Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial Testing the Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Mechlorethamine, 0.02%, Gel in Mycosis Fungoides

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 appl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of dermatology (1960) 2013-01, Vol.149 (1), p.1-8
Hauptverfasser: Lessin, Stuart R, Duvic, Madeleine, Guitart, Joan, Pandya, Amit G, Strober, Bruce E, Olsen, Elise A, Hull, Christopher M, Knobler, Elizabeth H, Rook, Alain H, Kim, Ellen J, Naylor, Mark F, Adelson, David M, Kimball, Alexa B, Wood, Gary S, Sundram, Uma, Wu, Hong, Kim, Youn H
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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 
ISSN:0003-987X
2168-6068
1538-3652
2168-6084
DOI:10.1001/2013.jamadermatol.541