Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
Post hoc Analysis of a Randomized, Controlled, Phase 2 Study to Assess Response Rates with Chlormethine/Mechlorethamine Gel in Patients with Stage IA-IIA Mycosis Fungoides.
Клиническое исследование II фазыСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Querfeld Christiane, Scarisbrick Julia J, Assaf Chalid, Guenova Emmanuella, Bagot Martine, Ortiz-Romero Pablo Luis, Quaglino Pietro, Bonizzoni Erminio, Hodak Emmilia
Аннотация
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.
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.