Home versus outpatient ultraviolet B phototherapy for mild to severe psoriasis: pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (PLUTO study)

Objective To determine whether ultraviolet B phototherapy at home is equally safe and equally effective as ultraviolet B phototherapy in an outpatient setting for patients with psoriasis

UVB phototherapy in an outpatient setting or at home: a pragmatic randomised single-blind trial designed to settle the discussion. The PLUTO study

BACKGROUND: Home ultraviolet B (UVB) treatment is a much-debated treatment, especially with regard to effectiveness, safety and side effects. However, it is increasingly being prescribed, especially in the Netherlands. Despite ongoing discussions, no randomised research has been performed, and only two studies actually compare two groups of patients. Thus, firm evidence to support or discourage the use of home UVB phototherapy has not yet been obtained. This is the goal of the present study, the PLUTO study (Dutch acronym for "national trial on home UVB phototherapy for psoriasis"). METHODS: We designed a pragmatic randomised single-blind multi-centre trial. This trial is designed to evaluate the impact of home UVB treatment versus UVB phototherapy in a hospital outpatient clinic as to effectiveness, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. In total 196 patients with psoriasis who were clinically eligible for UVB phototherapy were included. Normally 85% of the patients treated with UVB show a relevant clinical response. With a power of 80% and a 0.05 significance level it will be possible to detect a reduction in effectiveness of 15%. Effectiveness will be determined by calculating differences in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and the Self Administered PASI (SAPASI) scores. Quality of life is measured using several validated generic questionnaires and a disease-specific questionnaire. Other outcome measures include costs, side effects, dosimetry, concomitant use of medication and patient satisfaction. Patients are followed throughout the therapy and for 12 months thereafter. The study is no longer recruiting patients, and is expected to report in 2006. DISCUSSION: In the field of home UVB phototherapy this trial is the first randomised parallel group study. As such, this trial addresses the weaknesses encountered in previous studies. The pragmatic design ensures that the results can be well generalised to the target population. Because, in addition to effectiveness, aspects such as quality of life and cost-effectiveness are also taken into consideration, this study will produce valuable evidence to either support or discourage prescription of home UVB phototherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials/Nederlands Trial register: ISRCTN83025173. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0015093

Comparison of Survival Between Patients With Single vs Multiple Primary Cutaneous Melanomas

Importance: Melanoma is one of the most rapidly increasing forms of cancer worldwide. Most studies about survival among patients with melanoma consider only the primary tumor and disregard the potential effect of multiple primary tumors. A better understanding of the prognosis of patients with multiple primary melanoma is important for patient counselling and follow-up strategies. Objective: To describe the epidemiologic features of multiple primary melanoma in patients from the Netherlands. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study included adults with histologically proven, primary, invasive cutaneous melanoma in the Netherlands between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2014, with a median follow-up of 75.1 months, using data from PALGA, the Dutch Nationwide Network and Registry of Histopathology and Cytopathology. Follow-up data were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Statistical analysis was performed from August 1, 2018, to September 3, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: A multivariable Cox model with a time-varying covariate was performed to assess overall survival between patients with a single primary melanoma vs those with multiple primary melanomas. Secondary outcomes included incidence of multiple primary melanoma, differences in Breslow thickness, and time between first and second multiple primary melanoma. Results: Of the 56929 study patients, 31916 (56.1%) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 56.4 (16.2) years. A total of 54645 single primary melanomas and 4967 multiple primary melanomas in 2284 patients were included. The median Breslow thickness decreased from 0.90 mm (interquartile range, 0.55-1.70 mm) for the first melanoma to 0.65 mm (interquartile range, 0.45-1.10 mm) for the second melanoma (P <.001). For their second melanoma, 370 patients (16.2%) had a higher T stage, 1112 (48.7%) had the same T stage, and 802 (35.1%) had a lower T stage. In addition, 841 of 2284 second melanomas (36.8%) in patients with multiple primary melanomas were found during the first year of follow-up, whereas 624 of 2284 (27.3%) were found after 5 years of follow-up. These proportions did not vary when stratified for melanoma stage. Worse overall survival was seen among patients with multiple primary melanomas compared with patients with a single primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.20-1.42; P <.001). Conclusions and Relevance: A significant decrease in Breslow thickness between the first and second multiple primary melanoma was found, and overall survival among patients with multiple primary melanomas was significantly worse than that among patients with a single primary melanoma. These findings suggest that more strict follow-up strategies may be warranted for patients with multiple primary melanomas.