ArticleAnais brasileiros de dermatologia
Evaluation of secondary malignancies in a large series of mycosis fungoides.
Article in Anais brasileiros de dermatologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Is Kaposi sarcoma a novel comorbidity of cutaneous lymphoma? A systematic review of the literature.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025Pooled it
- Second primary cancers following hematologic malignancies: Epidemiology, pathobiology and clinical management.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- Coexistence of Mycosis Fungoides and Hodgkin Lymphoma in a Pediatric Patient: A Report of a Rare Case.Cureus · 2026Article
- Association of Secondary Primary Malignancies in Cutaneous Lymphoma: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Urinary Extracellular Vesicle Signatures as Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Patients.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn increased risk of Secondary Malignancies (SMs) in Mycosis Fungoides (MF) has been suggested previously. However, the relationship between this risk and the features of MF is not well-known.
objectiveTo investigate the rate and types of SMs in a large cohort of MF patients focusing on the associated features of these patients.
methodsThe demographic features, subtype, and stage of MF, as well as the temporal relationship between the diagnosis of MF and the development of SMs were determined. Major clinical features of MF in this group were compared with MF patients without association of SMs.
resultsAmong 730 MF patients with a mean follow-up period of 67.9 ± 52.4 months, 56 SMs were identified in a total of 52 (7.1%) patients. While 28.8% of patients were previously diagnosed with other malignancies, then subsequently had a diagnosis of MF, it was vice versa in 53.8% of patients. Most of the SM-associated MF patients had early-stage (80.7%) and classical type of MF (86.5%) without a significant difference from MF patients without association of SMs; 85.5% and 72.5%, respectively. The most commonly identified SMs were hematologic malignancies (64.3%) including lymphomatoid papulosis (n = 22), Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 4), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 5), polycythemia vera (n = 2). Other most commonly associated malignancies were breast cancer (n = 4), prostate cancer (n = 3), renal cell carcinoma (n = 2), melanoma (n = 2), and Kaposi's sarcoma (n = 2). STUDY LIMITATIONS: A single tertiary dermatology center study with a retrospective design.
conclusionApart from the well-known lymphomatoid papulosis association, systemic hematological malignancies were also quite common in the large cohort of MF patients.
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.