1Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria
Patrick M. Brunner
Roles:
Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Constanze Jonak
Roles:
Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Robert Knobler
Roles:
Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCLs) comprise a heterogeneous group of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphomas involving primarily the skin and mycosis fungoides is its most frequent entity. Whereas most patients show an indolent course in early disease (clinical stages IA to IIA), some patients progress to advanced disease (stage IIB or higher), and the 5-year survival rate is unfavorable: only 47% (stage IIB) to 18% (stage IVB). Except for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, there is currently no cure for CTCL and thus treatment approaches are palliative, focusing on patients’ health-related quality of life. Our aims were to review the current understanding of the pathogenesis of CTCL, such as the shift in overall immune skewing with progressive disease and the challenges of making a timely diagnosis in early-stage disease because of the lack of reliable positive markers for routine diagnostics, and to discuss established and potential treatment modalities such as immunotherapy and novel targeted therapeutics.
Keywords
Cutaneous T cell lymphoma, Mycosis fungoides, Sézary Syndrome, health-related quality of life, tissue resident memory T cells
Corresponding author:
Robert Knobler
Competing interests:
PMB is an employee of the Medical University of Vienna; has received personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Celgene, UCB Pharma, Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, Amgen, and Arena Pharmaceuticals; is an investigator for Novartis (grant paid to his institution); and has received a grant from Celgene (paid to his institution). CJ is an employee of the Medical University of Vienna; has received personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Takeda, Mallinckrodt/Therakos, AbbVie, Janssen, and Almirall; and is an investigator for Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, and 4SC (grant paid to her institution). RK is an employee of the Medical University of Vienna and has received personal fees from Mallinckrodt/Therakos.
Grant information:
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCLs) are primary lymphomas of the skin, and the estimated incidence is about 5.6 per million1,2. The term CTCL comprises a group of malignancies that develop from skin-homing T cells, which are of the CD4+ T helper cell type in more than 90% of cases1,2. The most frequent clinical entity of CTCL is mycosis fungoides (MF), accounting for about 60% of all cases, followed by primary cutaneous CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorders and much rarer entities such as Sézary syndrome (SS). The 2018 update of the World Health Organization–European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (WHO-EORTC) classification for cutaneous lymphomas describes new provisional entities—namely chronic active Epstein–Barr virus infection, CD8+ aggressive epidermotropic CTCL, primary cutaneous CD4+ small/medium T-cell lymphoproliferative disorder, and primary acral CD8+ T-cell lymphoma—which are now included3. In early disease stages, MF presents clinically with erythematous patches or plaques and this stage can last for many years without clinical progression and without affecting the life expectancy of the patient4. Nevertheless, CTCLs may be disfiguring and thus have an impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL)5,6. In about 30% of patients presenting with early-stage CTCL, the disease progresses to advanced-stage disease within 10 years7 by gradually developing into tumors and may disseminate to lymph nodes, blood, and internal organs, resulting in an unfavorable prognosis8,9; 5-year overall survival rates decrease from 94% in stage IA to as low as 18% in stage IVB10. However, in rare cases, MF can also initially present with tumors representing the disease variant “tumour d’emblée”. It is still unclear why about 30% of patients with CTCL7 progress to advanced disease; currently, prediction of prognosis is based predominantly on clinical staging by using the TNMB (tumor, node, metastasis, blood) classification for MF/SS11 and there are additional roles for gender, age, blood lactate dehydrogenase concentration, folliculotropism, large-cell transformation, and the detection of clonality10. Of note, no validated biomarkers, favorable or unfavorable, are available for the prediction of the disease course12.
Disease etiology and pathogenesis
The etiology of most variants of CTCL remains only poorly understood. Potential etiologic factors include infectious agents, ultraviolet (UV) light, or occupational exposures13,14. Large-scale mutational genome profiling analyses identified genomic alterations in several putative oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, including CARD11, CCR4, TP53, NF-κB, and Janus kinase signaling members15–19, but heterogeneity between individual patients can be considerable15–19. It is assumed that, besides a dysfunctional regulation of cytokines and other signaling molecules that most likely play a decisive role for malignant transformation, epigenetic modifications such as pathologic gene methylation and histone deacetylation play a role in malignant transformation of CTCL cells20.
In MF, the malignant T cells have been identified as typically CD4+ skin-resident effector memory T cells of clonal origin21. Their skin-resident nature explains why MF lesions tend to be primarily present in the skin in most patients21,22. By contrast, SS cells are classified as of the central memory phenotype (expressing the lymph node homing molecules CCR7 and L-selectin), enabling these cells to freely move from the periphery to lymphoid organs21,22. Consistently, the phenotype of SS typically shows erythroderma as well as blood and lymph node involvement.
CTCL cells have been described to express cytokines of various helper cell subtypes, including T helper 2 (Th2), Th17, and regulatory T cells23–25. In addition, many other chemokines and cytokines are being produced within lesions, adding to the overall complexity of the disease26. Histologically, malignant T cells are characterized by epidermotropism—that is, they are preferentially present in the upper parts of the skin (epidermis)—whereas non-malignant T cells are detected primarily in the dermis, especially in early MF. This early immune infiltrate consists primarily of non-malignant Th1 cells, regulatory T cells, and cytotoxic CD8+ T cells (tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, or TILs), which are hypothesized to (initially) keep the malignant T cells under control27,28, but the precise mechanisms remain unclear. During progression of the disease, a switch from the benign “bystander” infiltrate of Th1 cells and CD8+ TILs to a more Th2-biased phenotype, including the appearance of blood eosinophilia and markedly elevated IgE blood levels26, has been documented29. Conversely, therapeutic success in MF during skin-directed psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) therapy was linked to a shift from Th2 toward a Th1 phenotype with clearance of the skin lesions irrespective of tumor cell burden, implicating an increased turnover of benign T cells30. Thus, Th1 immune skewing in early-stage disease is traditionally considered protective (produced by the accompanying “anti-tumor” infiltrate), whereas a gradual loss of this Th1 signature, with an increase in Th2 mediators, is regarded as a sign of disease progression31. It is assumed that, mechanistically, tumor-derived Th2 cytokines suppress proliferation of benign T cells and inhibit dendritic cell (DC) maturation32. Such a Th2-dominant skin immune skewing is also found in atopic dermatitis; intriguingly, both patients with MF and those with atopic dermatitis have Staphylococcus aureus colonization and increased rates of infectious complications33,34. Recent data even suggest that staphylococcal alpha toxin itself may promote disease progression through positive selection of CD4+ tumor cells35. In line with its opposing effect toward Th2-associated inflammation, the major Th1 cytokine interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) shows some efficacy in CTCL treatment36. However, other cells, including fibroblasts, keratinocytes, and endothelial cells, are thought to promote and augment a Th2 microenvironment in advanced-stage MF, thereby further attenuating Th1 immune responses37.
DCs have the unique capacity to induce primary immune responses by activating naïve T cells and thus are the central gatekeepers for the initiation of adaptive immune responses38. As recently shown, c-Kit+OX40L+CD40L+ DCs can foster the visible skin inflammation within skin lesions by recruiting and activating benign T cells and this mechanism likely provides key tumorigenic signals within the CTCL immune microenvironment30. In advanced-stage CTCL, the maturation of DCs is thought to be suppressed by Th2 cytokines32. Importantly, immature DCs can induce tolerance by presenting antigens to T cells without appropriate co-stimulation, thus fostering a tumor-tolerating (micro)environment rather than an anti-tumor immune defense39. Consistently, increased levels of immature DCs are found in MF lesions, which might be an important mechanism for tolerance against malignant T cells40.
Keratinocytes produce multiple chemokines, including CCL17, CCL26, CCL27, CXCL9, and CXCL10, which are potent chemo-attractants for several immune cell populations. They also produce nerve growth factor, which is suggested to be involved in itch development, a typical symptom for CTCL26. Mast cells might also be involved in CTCL pathogenesis, as their number correlates with disease progression41. Similarly, myeloid-derived suppressor cells increase with advanced disease stage42, and immunosuppressive M2 macrophages are known to promote tumor growth in various cancers43 and could also play a role in CTCL44–46. Overall, there is a complex interplay between tumor cells and the tissue microenvironment, which is not yet fully elucidated.
Diagnosis of disease
In CTCL, genetic markers are currently under intense investigation as potential diagnostic tools, but single diagnostic biomarkers are still lacking. Thus, the integration of clinical morphology, histology, immune-phenotype, and molecular biological data remains essential for an accurate diagnosis3. Accordingly, the diagnosis of CTCL is based on the combination and correlation of the three following assessments: (a) clinical observations, (b) (immuno)histological examination of skin biopsies, and (c) additional laboratory tests such as flow cytometry of peripheral blood and the analysis of T-cell receptor (TCR) clonality by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)47. The parameter of large-cell transformation of MF cells, based on histological criteria, is found in 56 to 67% of patients with advanced-stage MF9 and linked to an aggressive disease course with shortened survival. Besides malignant T cells, an abundant number of reactive immune cells, including high numbers of non-malignant T cells, accompany the malignant clone. Molecular and immunohistochemistry markers that are currently used to diagnose MF are usually negative markers, such as loss of expression of, for example, CD7 or CD26, but this kind of aberrant surface expression shows considerable variability from case to case48. Useful positive diagnostic markers are still lacking for routine diagnostics. Importantly, the actual lymphoma cells are present in only small numbers during early stages of the disease. Thus, analyses of clonality (TCR rearrangement) are often falsely negative in early MF49. Rea et al. showed that, for CTCL diagnosis, high-throughput sequencing was more specific than TCR gamma chain gene PCR (100% versus 88%) but that sensitivity (68% versus 72%) and accuracy (84% versus 80%) were similar50. Thus, high-throughput sequencing, assessing both clonality and T-cell fractions in skin biopsies, is a promising tool to increase diagnostic accuracy in CTCL50.
TOX (thymocyte selection-associated high-mobility group box) has been found to be strongly upregulated in early MF compared with lower levels in benign inflammatory dermatitis51. Although TOX has insufficient sensitivity and specificity to serve as a single diagnostic marker, it might have an adjunctive diagnostic role together with other clinical and histological data52. For SS, CD27 might serve as a diagnostic tool to distinguish this disease from benign inflammatory erythroderma53. Nevertheless, the overall lack of validated and specific diagnostic markers adds to the fact that, in MF, for instance, it takes a median of about 3 years7 from the initial appearance of skin lesions until a definitive diagnosis can be made, demonstrating the difficulty of making a timely diagnosis, which mandates further research.
Current lack of prognostic biomarkers that can predict disease progression
The prediction of disease progression and overall survival in patients with MF has turned out to be a challenging endeavor54. A Cutaneous Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (CLIPI), which includes age, gender, folliculotropism, and TNMB staging, has been developed but has limited utility in early-stage patients55,56. The CXCR4–CXCL12 axis has been described as a potential player in MF progression57, but other authors did not consistently find differences between early and late disease stages58. Recently, however, De Masson et al. used high-throughput sequencing of the TCR beta gene and found that an increased frequency of the malignant T-cell clone in MF skin lesions is strongly correlated with reduced overall survival in patients with early-stage disease55.
Several authors showed associations of poor disease outcome with TOX59,60 as well as miR-155, miR-21, and let-7i microRNA expression17,47. Lefrançois et al.54 described TOX, FYB, CCR4, and CD52 as markers for disease progression and decreased survival in MF, and the authors confirmed these markers in an independent cohort of patients with SS. KIR3DL2, a recently discovered marker of the malignant clonal cell population in SS, was suggested as an independent prognostic factor for SS-specific death61. Nevertheless, none of these potential biomarkers has been fully validated so far55,62 and thus they are not yet available for clinical use.
One major factor limiting our insight into MF/SS pathogenesis is likely rooted in the considerable disease heterogeneity seen between individual patients63. Importantly, significant heterogeneity of gene expression was present not only between different patients but also within the same individual over time12,64,65. Importantly, all of these studies used bulk tissue investigations or conventional immunohistochemistry studies or both. However, bulk tissue investigations do not distinguish between individual cell types (for example, the actual tumor cell and the tumor microenvironment), and conventional measurements of cell heterogeneity such as immunohistochemistry can suffer from artifacts and are impractical when several markers are investigated at the same time66. Single-cell RNA sequencing has been shown to be a powerful tool to characterize complex as well as rare immune cell populations and to reveal unexpected or undescribed cell subpopulations, allowing the acquisition of large amounts of transcriptional information for the accurate and unbiased molecular characterization of these rare cells67. Gaydosik et al.63 performed a first investigation in advanced-stage CTCL and healthy control samples using single-cell RNA sequencing and found large inter- and intra-tumor gene expression heterogeneity in the T lymphocyte subset. Borcherding et al.68 investigated CTCL heterogeneity in circulating SS cells, giving insight into the heterogeneity of SS cells within a single patient and putting transcriptomic differences into context with published MF data. Though still at the beginning in CTCL, the evolution of single-cell transcriptomics might offer exciting new opportunities to better understand tumor cell heterogeneity and to facilitate the development of stratified diagnostic and prognostic approaches for patients with CTCL.
Novel treatment approaches
There is currently no cure for CTCL, except for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which carries a significant risk of relapse as well as treatment-related toxicity and death69. Immunotherapy including checkpoint inhibitors for CTCL is only at the beginning and might be a promising tool to achieve long-term disease control70, but the results of ongoing clinical trials must be awaited before making firm conclusions. Currently, CTCL treatment is based on a stage-related therapeutic approach. Thus, early-stage disease is first treated with skin-directed therapies2,71. These include topical application of glucocorticosteroids, topical mechlorethamine72, topical bexarotene, and the use of phototherapy (UVB and PUVA)73 or localized radiation therapy (photon or electron beam). In addition, early-phase clinical trials or case series (or both) suggest a potential role for topical Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists such as imiquimod74 or resiquimod75, photodynamic therapy76, and excimer laser therapy77, but data are limited and need corroboration in larger clinical trials. Interestingly, resiquimod showed regression not only of treated but also of untreated lesions in a phase 1 study75 and is being further investigated as a skin-directed compound.
Widespread, advanced disease or refractory early-disease requires systemic therapy. Established treatment modalities include low-dose methotrexate, systemic bexarotene, IFN, the histone deacetylase inhibitors romidepsin and vorinostat, the anti-CD52 antibody alemtuzumab78, extracorporeal photopheresis, and single-agent or combination chemotherapy.
Mogamulizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against the chemokine receptor CCR4 and has been investigated in a phase 3 trial in comparison with vorinostat in patients with previously treated CTCL79. The investigators showed that mogamulizumab resulted in a median progression-free survival of 7.7 months, compared with only 3.1 with the active comparator, and an objective response rate of 28% versus 5%. Surprisingly, vorinostat response rates were actually lower than in initial studies80,81. Response rates to mogamulizumab were independent of previous therapies82; long-term treatment seems to be safe and well tolerated82. Thus, mogamulizumab might also be an option for heavily pre-treated patients, and besides MF, this agent seems to be particularly promising for patients with SS79.
Brentuximab vedotin is an antibody–drug conjugate designed to target CD30 in CD30+ CTCL83. Although efficacy was reported to be better in CD30-expressing CTCL, clinical responses were still observed in patients with lower CD30 expression82. Thus, this treatment might also be an option for a wider range of CTCLs beyond those highly expressing CD30.
Owing to the chronic-relapsing nature of CTCLs, there are also investigations into maintenance therapy using lower treatment doses or frequencies or both. There are some promising data on maintenance PUVA therapy extending median disease-free remission from 4 to 15 months73. Resminostat is being investigated in a phase 2 clinical trial for maintenance therapy in patients with advanced-stage MF or SS (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02953301). Another promising treatment modality includes low-dose total skin electron beam treatment followed by mechlorethamine84, which is being investigated in a phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02881749). A phase 3 trial on lenalidomide maintenance in advanced CTCL was terminated early following withdrawal of funding support and thus was underpowered for analysis85.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized treatment of many cancer types, and there have been durable responses in some patients even after cessation of therapy86. As briefly mentioned above, these new agents might also be an option for CTCL87. In a phase II trial of patients with advanced, heavily pre-treated MF and SS, the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab demonstrated significant anti-tumor activity and had overall response rates of 38% and a favorable safety profile88. Ongoing treatment responses at last follow-up were observed in one third of patients88. Besides pembrolizumab, the PD-1 blocker nivolumab and the PD-L1 inhibitors durvalumab and atezolizumab are being investigated in clinical trials. Despite promising initial results, caution needs to be exerted as PD-1 blockade might also accelerate growth of T-cell malignancies, as seen in adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma that showed explosive progression of disease in the first three patients89.
Other treatment approaches being evaluated in early clinical trials include the SYK/JAK inhibitor cerdulatinib, an anti-KIR antibody (IPH4102), the microRNA Mir-155 inhibitor cobomarsen, and the CD70 blocker cusatuzumab82.
Outlook
Our understanding of the pathogenesis of CTCL has steadily increased within the last few years, but many aspects are still only insufficiently understood, necessitating further basic and translational research approaches. Whereas many patients show an indolent and self-limiting course, some patients progress. For those patients, treatment options are often limited and can harbor significant toxicity. In line with this, early-stage disease should preferentially be treated with skin-directed therapies and, in case of relapse and after initial therapeutic success, should be used in a repetitive manner. Systemic treatment should preferably be kept for advanced-stage disease or patients with refractory cutaneous involvement (for example, after secondary loss of efficacy with skin-directed therapies). Generally, the management of patients with CTCL should be reserved for specialized centers, which also offer the advantage of access to multicenter clinical trials. It is noteworthy that HRQoL is of significant importance in CTCL, profoundly influencing patients’ quality of life in terms of a visible stigma and its potential lethality90. Accordingly, HRQoL and its maintenance in MF/SS are of utmost importance in the face of current palliative treatment approaches in the majority of cases.
F1000 recommended
References
1.
Trautinger F, Knobler R, Willemze R, et al.:
EORTC consensus recommendations for the treatment of mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome.
Eur J Cancer.
2006; 42(8): 1014–30. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
2.
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. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
3.
Willemze R, Cerroni L, Kempf W, et al.:
The 2018 update of the WHO-EORTC classification for primary cutaneous lymphomas.
Blood.
2019; 133(16): 1703–14. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
4.
Kim YH, Jensen RA, Watanabe GL, et al.:
Clinical stage IA (limited patch and plaque) mycosis fungoides. A long-term outcome analysis.
Arch Dermatol.
1996; 132(11): 1309. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
5.
Porkert S, Lehner-Baumgartner E, Valencak J, et al.:
Patients' Illness Perception as a Tool to Improve Individual Disease Management in Primary Cutaneous Lymphomas.
Acta Derm Venereol.
2018; 98(2): 240–5. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
6.
Molloy K, Jonak C, Woei-A-Jin FJSH, et al.:
Characteristics associated with significantly worse quality of life in mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome from the Prospective Cutaneous Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (PROCLIPI) study.
Br J Dermatol.
2019; 182(3): 770–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
7.
Scarisbrick JJ, Quaglino P, Prince HM, et al.:
The PROCLIPI international registry of early-stage mycosis fungoides identifies substantial diagnostic delay in most patients.
Br J Dermatol.
2019; 181(2): 350–7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
9.
Arulogun SO, Prince HM, Ng J, et al.:
Long-term outcomes of patients with advanced-stage cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and large cell transformation.
Blood.
2008; 112(8): 3082–7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
10.
Agar NS, 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(31): 4730–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
11.
Wilcox RA:
Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: 2017 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management.
Am J Hematol.
2017; 92(10): 1085–102. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
12.
Litvinov IV, Tetzlaff MT, Thibault P, et al.:
Gene expression analysis in Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas (CTCL) highlights disease heterogeneity and potential diagnostic and prognostic indicators.
Oncoimmunology.
2017; 6(5): e1306618. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
13.
Damsky WE, Choi J:
Genetics of Cutaneous T Cell Lymphoma: From Bench to Bedside.
Curr Treat Options Oncol.
2016; 17(7): 33. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
14.
Dereure O, Levi E, Kadin ME, et al.:
Infrequent Fas Mutations but No Bax or p53 Mutations in Early Mycosis Fungoides: A Possible Mechanism for the Accumulation of Malignant T Lymphocytes in the Skin.
J Invest Dermatol.
2002; 118(6): 949–56. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
15.
Wang L, Ni X, Covington KR, et al.:
Genomic profiling of Sézary syndrome identifies alterations of key T cell signaling and differentiation genes.
Nat Genet.
2015; 47(12): 1426–34. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
17.
Sandoval J, Díaz-Lagares A, Salgado R, et al.:
MicroRNA Expression Profiling and DNA Methylation Signature for Deregulated MicroRNA in Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma.
J Invest Dermatol.
2015; 135(4): 1128–37. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
19.
da Silva Almeida AC, Abate F, Khiabanian H, et al.:
The mutational landscape of cutaneous T cell lymphoma and Sézary syndrome.
Nat Genet.
2015; 47(12): 1465–70. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
21.
Campbell JJ, Clark RA, Watanabe R, et al.:
Sezary syndrome and mycosis fungoides arise from distinct T-cell subsets: A biologic rationale for their distinct clinical behaviors.
Blood.
2010; 116(5): 767–71. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
22.
Clark RA, Watanabe R, Teague JE, et al.:
Skin Effector Memory T Cells Do Not Recirculate and Provide Immune Protection in Alemtuzumab-Treated CTCL Patients.
Sci Transl Med.
2012; 4(117): 117ra7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
23.
Krejsgaard T, Ralfkiaer U, Clasen-Linde E, et al.:
Malignant cutaneous T-cell lymphoma cells express IL-17 utilizing the Jak3/Stat3 signaling pathway.
J Invest Dermatol.
2011; 131(6): 1331–8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
24.
Berger CL, Tigelaar R, Cohen J, et al.:
Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: Malignant proliferation of T-regulatory cells.
Blood.
2005; 105(4): 1640–7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
25.
Geskin LJ, Viragova S, Stolz DB, et al.:
Interleukin-13 is overexpressed in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma cells and regulates their proliferation.
Blood.
2015; 125(18): 2798–805. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
27.
Gjerdrum LM, Woetmann A, Odum N, et al.:
FOXP3+ regulatory T cells in cutaneous T-cell lymphomas: Association with disease stage and survival.
Leukemia.
2007; 21(12): 2512–8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
31.
Guenova E, Watanabe R, Teague JE, et al.:
TH2 cytokines from malignant cells suppress TH1 responses and enforce a global TH2 bias in leukemic cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Clin Cancer Res.
2013; 19(14): 3755–63. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
32.
Thumann P, Lüftl M, Moc I, et al.:
Interaction of cutaneous lymphoma cells with reactive T cells and dendritic cells: Implications for dendritic cell-based immunotherapy.
Br J Dermatol.
2003; 149(6): 1128–42. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
33.
Talpur R, Singh L, Daulat S, et al.:
Long-term Outcomes of 1,263 Patients with Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome from 1982 to 2009.
Clin Cancer Res.
2012; 18(18): 5051–60. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
34.
Talpur R, Bassett R, Duvic M:
Prevalence and treatment of Staphylococcus aureus colonization in patients with mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome.
Br J Dermatol.
2008; 159(1): 105–12. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
35.
Blümel E, Willerslev-Olsen A, Gluud M, et al.:
Staphylococcal alpha-toxin tilts the balance between malignant and non-malignant CD4+ T cells in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Oncoimmunology.
2019; 8(11): e1641387. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
36.
Dummer R, Eichmüller S, Gellrich S, et al.:
Phase II Clinical Trial of Intratumoral Application of TG1042 (Adenovirus-interferon-γ) in Patients With Advanced Cutaneous T-cell Lymphomas and Multilesional Cutaneous B-cell Lymphomas.
Mol Ther.
2010; 18(6): 1244–7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
37.
Miyagaki T, Sugaya M, Fujita H, et al.:
Eotaxins and CCR3 interaction regulates the Th2 environment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
J Invest Dermatol.
2010; 130(9): 2304–11. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
38.
Banchereau J, Steinman RM:
Dendritic cells and the control of immunity.
Nature.
1998; 392(6673): 245–52. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
39.
Lüftl M, Feng A, Licha E, et al.:
Dendritic cells and apoptosis in mycosis fungoides.
Br J Dermatol.
2002; 147(6): 1171–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
40.
Schlapbach C, Ochsenbein A, Kaelin U, et al.:
High numbers of DC-SIGN+ dendritic cells in lesional skin of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
J Am Acad Dermatol.
2010; 62(6): 995–1004. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
42.
Pileri A, Agostinelli C, Sessa M, et al.:
Langerhans, plasmacytoid dendritic and myeloid-derived suppressor cell levels in mycosis fungoides vary according to the stage of the disease.
Virchows Arch.
2017; 470(5): 575–82. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
44.
Furudate S, Fujimura T, Kakizaki A, et al.:
The possible interaction between periostin expressed by cancer stroma and tumor-associated macrophages in developing mycosis fungoides.
Exp Dermatol.
2016; 25(2): 107–12. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
45.
Wu X, Schulte BC, Zhou Y, et al.:
Depletion of M2-like tumor-associated macrophages delays cutaneous T-cell lymphoma development in vivo.
J Invest Dermatol.
2014; 134(11): 2814–22. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
46.
Sugaya M, Miyagaki T, Ohmatsu H, et al.:
Association of the numbers of CD163+ cells in lesional skin and serum levels of soluble CD163 with disease progression of cutaneous T cell lymphoma.
J Dermatol Sci.
2012; 68(1): 45–51. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
47.
Ralfkiaer U, Hagedorn PH, Bangsgaard N, et al.:
Diagnostic microRNA profiling in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).
Blood.
2011; 118(22): 5891–900. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
51.
Zhang Y, Wang Y, Yu R, et al.:
Molecular markers of early-stage mycosis fungoides.
J Invest Dermatol.
2012; 132(6): 1698–706. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
52.
Schrader AM, Jansen PM, Willemze R:
TOX expression in cutaneous T-cell lymphomas: an adjunctive diagnostic marker that is not tumour specific and not restricted to the CD4+ CD8- phenotype.
Br J Dermatol.
2016; 175(2): 382–6. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
53.
Fierro MT, Novelli M, Quaglino P, et al.:
Heterogeneity of circulating CD4+ memory T-cell subsets in erythrodermic patients: CD27 analysis can help to distinguish cutaneous T-cell lymphomas from inflammatory erythroderma.
Dermatology.
2008; 216(3): 213–21. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
54.
Lefrançois P, Xie P, Wang L, et al.:
Gene expression profiling and immune cell-type deconvolution highlight robust disease progression and survival markers in multiple cohorts of CTCL patients.
Oncoimmunology.
2018; 7(8): e1467856. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
56.
Sanz-Bueno J, Lora D, Monsálvez V, et al.:
The new Cutaneous Lymphoma International Prognostic index (CLIPi) for early mycosis fungoides failed to identify prognostic groups in a cohort of Spanish patients.
Br J Dermatol.
2016; 175(4): 794–6. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
57.
Daggett RN, Kurata M, Abe S, et al.:
Expression dynamics of CXCL 12 and CXCR 4 during the progression of mycosis fungoides.
Br J Dermatol.
2014; 171(4): 722–31. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
58.
Maj J, Jankowska-Konsur AM, Hałoń A, et al.:
Expression of CXCR4 and CXCL12 and their correlations to the cell proliferation and angiogenesis in mycosis fungoides.
Postepy Dermatol Alergol.
2015; 32(6): 437–42. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
59.
Huang Y, Litvinov IV, Wang Y, et al.:
Thymocyte selection-associated high mobility group box gene (TOX) is aberrantly over-expressed in mycosis fungoides and correlates with poor prognosis.
Oncotarget.
2014; 5(12): 4418–25. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
60.
Dulmage BO, Geskin LJ, et al.:
Lessons learned from gene expression profiling of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Br J Dermatol.
2013; 169(6): 1188–97. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
61.
Hurabielle C, Thonnart N, Ram-Wolff C, et al.:
Usefulness of KIR3DL2 to Diagnose, Follow-Up, and Manage the Treatment of Patients with Sézary Syndrome.
Clin Cancer Res.
2017; 23(14): 3619–27. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
64.
Litvinov IV, Jones DA, Sasseville D, et al.:
Transcriptional profiles predict disease outcome in patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Clin Cancer Res.
2010; 16(7): 2106–14. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
65.
Shin J, Monti S, Aires DJ, et al.:
Lesional gene expression profiling in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma reveals natural clusters associated with disease outcome.
Blood.
2007; 110(8): 3015–27. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
66.
Shen-Orr SS, Gaujoux R:
Computational deconvolution: extracting cell type-specific information from heterogeneous samples.
Curr Opin Immunol.
2013; 25(5): 571–8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
68.
Borcherding N, Voigt AP, Liu V, et al.:
Single-Cell Profiling of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma Reveals Underlying Heterogeneity Associated with Disease Progression.
Clin Cancer Res.
2019; 25(10): 2996–3005. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
69.
Iqbal M, Reljic T, Klocksieben F, et al.:
Efficacy of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Human T Cell Lymphotropic Virus Type 1-Associated Adult T Cell Leukemia/Lymphoma: Results of a Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant.
2019; 25(8): 1695–700. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
70.
Sivanand A, Surmanowicz P, Alhusayen R, et al.:
Immunotherapy for Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma: Current Landscape and Future Developments.
J Cutan Med Surg.
2019; 23(5): 537–44. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
71.
Ramelyte E, Dummer R, Guenova E:
Investigative drugs for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCL): an update.
Expert Opin Investig Drugs.
2019; 28(9): 799–809. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
72.
Lessin SR, Duvic M, Guitart J, et al.:
Topical chemotherapy in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: positive results of a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial testing the efficacy and safety of a novel mechlorethamine, 0.02%, gel in mycosis fungoides.
JAMA Dermatol.
2013; 149(1): 25. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
73.
Vieyra-Garcia P, Fink-Puches R, Porkert S, et al.:
Evaluation of Low-Dose, Low-Frequency Oral Psoralen-UV-A Treatment With or Without Maintenance on Early-Stage Mycosis Fungoides: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
JAMA Dermatol.
2019; 155(5): 538–47. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
76.
Quéreux G, Brocard A, Saint-Jean M, et al.:
Photodynamic therapy with methyl-aminolevulinic acid for paucilesional mycosis fungoides: a prospective open study and review of the literature.
J Am Acad Dermatol.
2013; 69(6): 890–7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
77.
Deaver D, Cauthen A, Cohen G, et al.:
Excimer laser in the treatment of mycosis fungoides.
J Am Acad Dermatol.
2014; 70(6): 1058–60. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
78.
Lundin J, Hagberg H, Repp R, et al.:
Phase 2 study of alemtuzumab (anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody) in patients with advanced mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome.
Blood.
2003; 101(11): 4267–72. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
79.
Kim YH, 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. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
80.
Olsen EA, Kim YH, Kuzel TM, et al.:
Phase IIb multicenter trial of vorinostat in patients with persistent, progressive, or treatment refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
J Clin Oncol.
2007; 25(21): 3109–15. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
81.
Duvic M, Talpur R, Ni X, et al.:
Phase 2 trial of oral vorinostat (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid, SAHA) for refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).
Blood.
2006; 109(1): 31–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
82.
Geskin LJ:
Highlights in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma from the 60th American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting: A dermatologist's perspective.
Clin Adv Hematol Oncol.
2019; 17(Suppl 3(2)): 21–3. PubMed Abstract
83.
Prince HM, Kim YH, Horwitz SM, et al.:
Brentuximab vedotin or physician's choice in CD30-positive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (ALCANZA): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial.
Lancet.
2017; 390(10094): 555–66. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
84.
Jennings T, Duffy R, Gochoco A, et al.:
Valchlor maintenance therapy for patients with mycosis fungoides who received low dose total skin electron beam treatment.
Chin Clin Oncol.
2019; 8(1): 13. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
85.
Bagot M, Hasan B, Whittaker S, et al.:
A phase III study of lenalidomide maintenance after debulking therapy in patients with advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma - EORTC 21081 (NCT01098656): results and lessons learned for future trial designs.
Eur J Dermatol.
2017; 27(3): 286–94. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
86.
Robert C, Ribas A, Hamid O, et al.:
Durable Complete Response After Discontinuation of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma.
J Clin Oncol.
2018; 36(17): 1668–74. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
87.
Wu X, Singh R, Hsu DK, et al.:
A Small Molecule CCR2 Antagonist Depletes Tumor Macrophages and Synergizes with Anti-PD-1 in a Murine Model of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL).
J Invest Dermatol.
2020. S0022-202X(19)33562-6. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
89.
Ratner L, Waldmann TA, Janakiram M, et al.:
Rapid Progression of Adult T-Cell Leukemia-Lymphoma after PD-1 Inhibitor Therapy.
N Engl J Med.
2018; 378(20): 1947–8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
90.
Jonak C, Porkert S, Oerlemans S, et al.:
Health-related Quality of Life in Cutaneous Lymphomas: Past, Present and Future.
Acta Derm Venereol.
2019; 99(7): 640–6. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
PMB is an employee of the Medical University of Vienna; has received personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Celgene, UCB Pharma, Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, Amgen, and Arena Pharmaceuticals; is an investigator for Novartis (grant paid to his institution); and has received a grant from Celgene (paid to his institution). CJ is an employee of the Medical University of Vienna; has received personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Takeda, Mallinckrodt/Therakos, AbbVie, Janssen, and Almirall; and is an investigator for Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, and 4SC (grant paid to her institution). RK is an employee of the Medical University of Vienna and has received personal fees from Mallinckrodt/Therakos.
Brunner PM, Jonak C and Knobler R. Recent advances in understanding and managing cutaneous T-cell lymphomas [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):331 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21922.1)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Share
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEWHIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an
... Continue reading
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an
... Continue reading
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations -
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Adjust parameters to alter display
View on desktop for interactive features
Includes Interactive Elements
View on desktop for interactive features
Competing Interests Policy
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests'
Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests'
You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.
Stay Updated
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Comments on this article Comments (0)