European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus recommendations for the treatment of mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome – Update 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to provide a common standard for the treatment of mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force (EORTC-CLTF) published in 2006 its consensus recommendations for the stage-adapted selection of management options for these neoplasms. Since then, the understanding of the pathophysiology and epidemiology of MF/SS has advanced, the staging system has been revised, new outcome data have been published and novel treatment options have been introduced. The purpose of the present document is to update the original recommendations bearing in mind that there are still only a limited number of controlled studies to support treatment decisions for MF/SS and that often treatment is determined by institutional experience and availability. This consensus on treatment recommendations was established among the authors through a series of consecutive consultations in writing and a round of discussion. Recommended treatment options are presented according to disease stage, whenever possible categorised into first- and second-line options and supported with levels of evidence as devised by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM). Skin-directed therapies are still the most appropriate option for early-stage MF, and most patients can look forward to a normal life expectancy. For patients with advanced disease, prognosis is still grim, and only for a highly selected subset of patients, prolonged survival can be achieved with allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). There is a high need for the development and investigation in controlled clinical trials of treatment options that are based on our increasing understanding of the molecular pathology of MF/SS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".