4.7 Article

Clinical End Points and Response Criteria in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome: A Consensus Statement of the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas, the United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium, and the Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 18, Pages 2598-2607

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.0630

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. BioCryst
  2. Eisai
  3. Johnson Johnson
  4. Yaupon Therapeutics
  5. Genmab
  6. Gloucester Pharmaceuticals
  7. Merck
  8. Allos Therapeutics
  9. Eli Lilly
  10. TenX Biopharma
  11. Therakos
  12. Roche
  13. Novartis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sezary syndrome (SS), the major forms of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, have unique characteristics that distinguish them from other types of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Clinical trials in MF/SS have suffered from a lack of standardization in evaluation, staging, assessment, end points, and response criteria. Recently defined criteria for the diagnosis of early MF, guidelines for initial evaluation, and revised staging and classification criteria for MF and SS now offer the potential for uniform staging of patients enrolled in clinical trials for MF/SS. This article presents consensus recommendations for the general conduct of clinical trials of patients with MF/SS as well as methods for standardized assessment of potential disease manifestations in skin, lymph nodes, blood, and visceral organs, and definition of end points and response criteria. These guidelines should facilitate collaboration among investigators and collation of data from sponsor-generated or investigator-initiated clinical trials involving patients with MF or SS. J Clin Oncol 29:2598-2607. (C) 2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available