Cited by 3Cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentCancer and Skin Lesions

The diagnosis of early-stage mycosis fungoides: Views held by experts and non-experts in cutaneous lymphoma

Open access
Beatty, Paula, Molloy, Kevin, Porkert, Stefanie, Foley, Megan Power, Tobin, Anne‐Marie, Trautinger, Franz, Scarisbrick, Julia, Jonak, Constanze·2025·JDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Mycosis fungoides (MF) accounts for the majority of cutaneous lymphomas (CL). There is a documented delay in the diagnosis of early-stage MF. However, its timely diagnosis is paramount to avoid potentially harmful therapies and undue patient distress. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the views held by both specialists and non-specialists in CL regarding the diagnosis of early-stage MF, to identify clinical needs. METHODS: Two distinct questionnaires were distributed to physicians, who either have a potential or no special interest in CL (non-specialists), or who have a special interest in CL (specialists) and who were identified by participation in the PROCLIPI (PROspective Cutaneous Lymphoma International Prognostic Index) study. RESULTS: Survey results were received from 382 participants, 86 specialists, and 296 non-specialists. In total, 82% of respondents held the view that the diagnosis of early-stage MF is delayed. The frequent misclassification of MF as a benign inflammatory dermatosis was identified as the most important contributing factor. CONCLUSIONS: Non-specialists assume that a delayed diagnosis impairs therapeutic efficacy and prognosis in MF, while specialists primarily suspect negative effects on patients' health-related quality of life. Our study reveals an unmet need to promote education and increase awareness among dermatologists regarding the impact of early-stage MF on patient management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ddg.15799

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent international survey data from Beatty et al. revealed that the vast majority of experts and general practitioners acknowledge that the diagnosis of eMF is structurally delayed, primarily due to clinical and histological misclassification as BIDs.

    “Recent international survey data from Beatty et al. revealed that the vast majority of experts and general practitioners acknowledge that the diagnosis of eMF is structurally delayed, primarily due to clinical and histological misclassification as BIDs 16 .”

    From Histological triage of early-stage mycosis fungoides using a weakly supervised deep learning-based model: a multicentre, external validation, and clinical utility study (2026) · cites this paper as [16]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [9]Kim YH, Liu HL, Mraz‐Gernhard S, et al. Long‐term outcome of 525 patients with mycosis fungoides and Sezary syndrome: clinical prognostic factors and risk for disease progression. Arch Dermatol. 2003; 139(7): 857‐ 866. 12873880

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beatty, P., Molloy, K., Porkert, S., Foley, M. P., Tobin, A., Trautinger, F., Scarisbrick, J., & Jonak, C.
Affiliations
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • Universitätsklinikum St. Pölten (AT)
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Jonak, Constanze
Venue
JDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-06-29
Volume
23
Issue
9
Pages
1094-1102
ISSN
  • 1610-0379 (ISSN-L)
  • 1610-0387
OpenAlex
W4411840350
Cited by
3
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
2.87
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
Locations
  • JDDG Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Cancer and Skin Lesions
Keywords
mycosis fungoides, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, early-stage diagnosis, delayed diagnosis, physician perceptions, health-related quality of life
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mycosis Fungoides, Surveys and Questionnaires, Skin Neoplasms, Delayed Diagnosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review