Comparison of Pegylated Interferon α-2b Plus Psoralen PUVA Versus Standard Interferon α-2a Plus PUVA in Patients with Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profile of pegylated interferon α-2b (PEG-IFN α-2b) in combination with photochemotherapy (PUVA) in the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in comparison with standard IFN α plus PUVA.
Design: Retrospective cohort study over a period of 7 years.
Patients And Interventions: A total of 17 consecutive CTCL patients (stage IA-IV) were retrospectively analysed for toxicity and response rates associated with PEG-IFN α-2b (1.5 μg/kg weekly) plus PUVA (n = 9) or standard IFN α-2a (9 MIU 3×/week) plus PUVA (n = 8).
Main Outcome Measures: Differences of response rates (complete/partial remission), progression-free survival, discontinuation of therapy, safety and toxicity profiles according to World Health Organization - Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (WHO-CTCAE).
Results: Myelosuppression and liver toxicity occured more frequently during PEG-IFN α-2b plus PUVA treatment than during standard IFN α-2a plus PUVA therapy [77.8 vs. 50% (odds ratio 1.477) and 77.8 vs. 50% (odds ratio 1.692), respectively]. By contrast, the occurence of constitutional side-effects (mainly fatigue) [100 vs.77.8% (odds ratio 0.889)] and more adverse events leading to study discontinuation was considerably higher in the standard IFN α-2a plus PUVA group. The overall response rate in the PEG-IFN α-2b plus PUVA group (89%) was significantly superior.
Conclusions: In patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma PEG-IFN α-2b plus PUVA might become a promising treatment alternative as its higher rate of myelosuppression and liver toxicity is outweighed by its lower percentage of constitutional side-effects, and its significantly higher overall response. Due to the small number of participants at this retrospective study, a larger prospective study is essential to verify our results.
Albrecht J, Ninosu N, Barry D, Albrecht T, Schaarschmidt M, Goerdt S Acta Derm Venereol. 2022; 102:adv00722.
PMID: 35506362 PMC: 9593485. DOI: 10.2340/actadv.v102.2487.
S2k-Guidelines - Cutaneous lymphomas (ICD10 C82 - C86): Update 2021.
Dippel E, Assaf C, Becker J, von Bergwelt-Baildon M, Bernreiter S, Cozzio A J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2022; 20(4):537-554.
PMID: 35446497 PMC: 9325452. DOI: 10.1111/ddg.14706.
Mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome: focus on the current treatment scenario.
Sanches J, Cury-Martins J, Abreu R, Miyashiro D, Pereira J An Bras Dermatol. 2021; 96(4):458-471.
PMID: 34053802 PMC: 8245718. DOI: 10.1016/j.abd.2020.12.007.
Zhang S, Liu Z, Yang L, Wang T, Liu J, Liu Y Ann Transl Med. 2020; 8(15):920.
PMID: 32953720 PMC: 7475424. DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-1458.
Interventions for mycosis fungoides.
Valipour A, Jager M, Wu P, Schmitt J, Bunch C, Weberschock T Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 7:CD008946.
PMID: 32632956 PMC: 7389258. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008946.pub3.