MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402523012 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31090400

Mogamulizumab and Concomitant Hypofractionated Low-Dose Total Skin Electron Beam Therapy (2 × 4 Gy) in Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma: Proof of Principle, Report of Two Cases

2024· article· en· W4402523012 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mathias Oymanns, Michael Daum-Marzian, Chalid Assaf

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcomitantProof of conceptDermatologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with advanced-stage mycosis fungoides (MF IIB-IVB) and Sézary syndrome (SS) have poor prognoses, with survival ranging from 4.7 to 1.4 years depending on the disease stage. There is a need for therapeutic approaches that lead to long-lasting responses and improved quality of life and survival. Mogamulizumab, a humanized antibody against the CCR4 molecule, and low-dose total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT) are two known established treatments for MF and SS as a monotherapy. However, little is known about the potential additive effect on the combination of both treatments. We report here for the first time the concurrent use of low-dose hypofractionated TSEBT (2 × 4 Gy) with mogamulizumab. Based on two relapsed/refractory and advanced-stage CTCL patients, we show that this combination may be well tolerated in advanced-stage MF or SS and may potentially lead to an additive treatment effect on response times, particularly in the skin and blood within two weeks. We propose that this combination may be a treatment option for patients with SS. Further research is needed to understand the efficacy and tolerability profile of this therapeutic combination and to determine if there is an additive effect of the combination on the response rates when compared with the monotherapy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207