ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Chlormethine gel effectiveness as second-line treatment in mycosis fungoides: a single-centre retrospective study.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChlormethine gel is a promising treatment for early-stage mycosis fungoides (MF) with strong efficacy and manageable side effects. This study evaluates its effectiveness as a second-line treatment in patients unresponsive to prior skin-directed therapies (SDTs) or combined systemic treatments, hypothesising significant therapeutic benefits with manageable adverse reactions.
methodsA retrospective observational study was conducted from April 2021 to December 2022, including adult patients with histologically confirmed MF who had not responded to at least one prior SDT. Patients received daily chlormethine gel applications, and responses were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months using the Modified Severity-Weighted Assessment Tool (mSWAT). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS ver 26 (IBM), including one-way ANOVA and univariate regression.
resultsThe study included 21 patients (12 males, 9 females; mean age 61 years). 81% had early-stage MF, and 19% had advanced-stage disease. Chlormethine gel showed a 90% response rate, with 33.3% achieving complete response (CR) and 57.1% partial response (PR). Adverse reactions were primarily contact or irritative dermatitis, which were manageable and did not significantly affect outcomes. Median mSWAT scores significantly reduced from baseline at 3, 6, and 12 months (P = 0.002).
conclusionsChlormethine gel appeared to be efficacious and safe as a second-line treatment for MF, including in advanced stages. Despite limitations like small sample size and retrospective design, these findings highlight its potential in combination therapies and the importance of continued treatment for optimal outcomes. Future research should confirm these results in larger, prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.