Clinical profile and therapeutic aspects of mycosis fungoides: a retrospective analysis of 210 cases in Russia

Background. Mycosis fungoides (MF) is classified as an orphan disease. Due to the rarity of pathology, and until recently the absence of an expert group and a specialized reference center for cutaneous lymphomas in Russia, possible treatment options for MF are presented by listing them without recommendations on the preferred indications for one or another option. This creates difficulties in choosing treatment methods and assessing their effectiveness.

Aim. To characterize current treatment methods and their results in MF patients who were observed or received consultative and diagnostic care at the National Medical Research Center for Hematology.

Materials and methods. The study included 210 patients: 115 with early disease stages and 95 with advanced stages.

Results and conclusion. The most common treatment options were for early stages – local therapy, interferon therapy and systemic chemotherapy (CT), for advanced stages – combination therapy with interferon (+ PUVA therapy, methotrexate), interferon monotherapy and systemic CT. The frequency of systemic chemotherapy use in all lines of MF treatment was 21 %. When integrating statistical analysis using the probability of achieving an antitumor response, switching to 2nd line therapy, and accumulated incidence, the negative results of using chemotherapy in the MF treatment were clearly demonstrated.

For the first time in Russia, a real practical situation of the applied MF treatment options is presented on our own large sample of patients. As the first line of therapy, the most common options were immunotherapy and phototherapy, however, in 12.4 % of cases, the use of systemic CT was registered, which is unjustified and leads to a decrease in the time to the next line of treatment and an increase in the cumulative incidence of adverse events. As a result of the use of non-chemotherapeutic approaches (interferon, etc.), the 3-year relapse-free survival rate is about 40 %, after chemotherapy – 9.4 %. Secondand third-line therapy provided more varied options, including combination treatment with interferon and methotrexate, as well as gemcitabine monotherapy, targeted therapy with brentuximab vedotin, and epigenetic therapy in the 3rd line. Studies with targeted agents in this patient population have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes, highlighting the need for their early use to achieve the best results.

1. Clinical guidelines. Mycosis fungoides. 2020. Approved by the Ministry of Health of Russia. All-Russian public organization “Russian Society of Dermatovenerologists and Cosmetologists”; Russian professional society of oncohematologists. (In Russ.).

2. Olsen E., Whittaker S., Willemze R. et al. Primary cutaneous lymphoma: recommendations for clinical trial design and staging update from ISCL, USCLC, and EORTC. Blood 2022;140(5):419– 37. DOI: 10.1182/blood.2021012057

3. Kaye F.J., Bunn Jr. P.A., Steinberg S.M. et al. A randomized trial comparing combination electron-beam radiation and chemotherapy with topical therapy in the initial treatment of mycosis fungoides. N Engl J Med 1989;321:1784–90. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198912283212603

4. Van Doorn R., van Kester M.S., Dijkman R. et al. Oncogenomic analysis of mycosis fungoides reveals major differences with Sezary syndrome. Blood 2009;113:127–36. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2008-04-153031

5. Trautinger F., Eder J., Assaf C. et al. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus recommendations for the treatment of mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome – Update 2017. Eur J Cancer 2017;77:57–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.02.027

6. Agar N.S., Wedgeworth E., Crichton S. et al. Survival outcomes and prognostic factors in mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome: validation of the revised International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer staging proposal. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4730–9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.7665

7. Assaf C., Illidge T.M., Waser N. et al. A retrospective chart review of treatment patterns and overall survival among a cohort of patients with relapsed/refractory mycosis fungoides in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Cancers (Basel) 2023;15(23):5669. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15235669

8. Kamijo H., Miyagaki T. Mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome: updates and review of current therapy. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2021;22(2):10. DOI: 10.1007/s11864-020-00809-w

9. Giordano A., Pagano L. The treatment of advanced-stage mycosis fungoides and Sezary syndrome: a hematologist’s point of view. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis 2022;14(1):e2022029. DOI: 10.4084/MJHID.2022.029

10. Kubanov A.A., Rakhmatulina M.R., Karamova A.E. et al. Epidemiological and clinical parameters of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (based on the register of the Russian Society of Dermatovenerologists and Cosmetologists). Meditsinskie tekhnologii. Otsenka i vybor = Medical Technologies. Assessment and Choice 2023;(4):10–8. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/medtech20234504110

11. Trautinger F., Knobler R., Willemze R. et al. EORTC consensus recommendations for the treatment of mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:1014–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.025

12. Latzka J., Assaf C., Bagot M. et al. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus recommendations for the treatment of mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome – Update 2023. Eur J Cancer 2023;195:113343. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113343

13. Hughes C.F., Khot A., McCormack C. et al. Lack of durable disease control with chemotherapy for mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome: а comparative study of systemic therapy. Blood 2015;125(1):71–81. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2014-07-588236

14. Gorenkova L.G., Ryzhikova N.V., Moiseeva T.N. et al. Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (mycosis fungoides) in hematological practice. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya = Hematology and transfusiology 2020;65(S1):133. (In Russ.).

15. Kim Y.H., Tavallaee M., Sundram U. et al. Phase II investigatorinitiated study of brentuximab vedotin in mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome with variable CD30 expression level: а multiinstitution collaborative project. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:3750–8. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.60.3969

16. Horwitz S.M., Scarisbrick J.J., Dummer R. et al. Randomized phase 3 ALCANZA study of brentuximab vedotin vs physician’s choice in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: final data. Blood Adv 2021;5(23):5098–106. DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004710

17. Kim Y.H., Bagot M., Pinter-Brown L. et al. Mogamulizumab versus vorinostat in previously treated cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (MAVORIC): an international, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19(9):1192–204. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30379-6

18. De Masson A., Beylot-Barry M., Ram-Wolff C. et al. Allogeneic transplantation in advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CUTALLO): a propensity score matched controlled prospective study. Lancet 2023;401(10392):1941–50. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00329-X

19. Dai J., Duvic M. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: current and emerging therapies. Oncology 2023;37:55–62. DOI: 10.46883/2023.25920984

20. Campbell B.A., Scarisbrick J.J., Kim Y.H. et al. Time to next treatment as a meaningful endpoint for trials of primary cutaneous lymphoma. Cancers 2020;12(8):2311. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12082311

21. Assaf C., Waser N., Bagot M. et al. Contemporary treatment patterns and response in relapsed/refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) across five European countries. Cancers 2021;14(1):145. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010145

22. Bagot M., Illidge T., Waser N.A. et al. Survival among a patient cohort of relapsed/refractory mycosis fungoides in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Hematol Oncol 2019;37:485–6.