SynthesisDermatologic therapy2022
Short-term efficacy and safety of total skin electron beam therapy in mycosis fungoides: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Dermatologic therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term efficacy and safety of total skin electron beam therapy in mycosis fungoides: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Dermatologic therapy · 2022Pooled it
- Skin-Directed Therapies in Mycosis Fungoides: An Update.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Review
- Condensed low-dose total skin electron beam therapy for mycosis fungoides: an institutional retrospective review and subgroup analysis of patients with large cell transformation.Archives of dermatological research · 2025Article
- Nontoxic generalized patient shielding devices for total skin electron therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Total skin electron beam therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Skin-directed therapy and biologic response modifiers in mycosis fungoides.Dermatology reports · 2024Review
- Advances in the treatment of mycoses fungoides and Sézary syndrome: a narrative update in skin-directed therapies and immune-based treatments.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT) is one of the mainstays of treatment for mycosis fungoides. The most common modalities are standard dose (30-36 Gy) and low dose (10-12 Gy). To review the literature on the efficacy and safety profiles of standard dose and low dose TSEBT. We searched electronic databases for studies that enrolled patients with Mycosis Fungoides and treated with TSEBT. We estimated the event rates associated with low dose and standard dose TSEBT. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline was followed. Main outcomes were complete response rate, partial response rate, mild and severe adverse events rate low dose TSEBT had a Complete Response Rate of 28% [0.19, 0.37], an Overall Response Rate of 85% [0.76, 0.93], a mild adverse events rate of 93% [0.82, 1.04] and a severe adverse events rate of 5% [-0.04; 0.14] Standard dose TSEBT had a Complete Response Rate of 57% [0.41; 0.73], the Overall Response Rate was 99% [0.97; 1.02], the mild adverse events rate was 100%, the severe adverse events rate was 7% [-0.01; 0.16]. Comparing standard dose TSEBT in the early versus advanced stages, advanced stages patients had a Risk Ratio = 0.77 in obtaining a Complete Response [0.64, 0.92](p = 0.0158). TSEBT is an associated with an excellent short term safety profile. Both schedules show high ORR, with standard dose TSEBT demonstrating highest CRR. Advanced stage of disease negatively influence the CRR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.