Can Dupixent Cause Cancer? What the Evidence Actually Shows

By Jack W. Lurton, III · Medical Malpractice and Mass Tort Attorney, Rafferty Domnick Cunningham & Yaffa, P.A.

Published July 27, 2026 · Last updated August 11, 2026

In Brief

Researchers have reported a link between Dupixent (dupilumab) and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare lymphoma that appears first in the skin. Two dermatology studies found roughly four-fold higher risk. A cohort of asthma patients found a smaller but statistically significant increase. Other large studies found no significant increase. The FDA has listed the issue as a potential safety signal but has not added a warning to the label, and the drug has not been recalled. In June 2026 the federal lawsuits were consolidated into one proceeding. None of that settles whether the drug causes the cancer.

When researchers start linking a widely used medicine to a rare disease, the hardest question is rarely whether anyone has filed a lawsuit. It is whether doctors, researchers, and patients are asking the same question, and what evidence will eventually answer it.

That is where Dupixent sits right now.

I have spent more than two decades in civil litigation, much of it spent reading medical and pharmaceutical evidence. That work has taught me something that cuts against my own professional interest: an early signal is not a conclusion. Sometimes it holds up and a company is held to account. Sometimes it dissolves under better data. With Dupixent and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, we are still in the part of the story where honest people disagree.

So this is not a piece about a lawsuit. It is about what the evidence shows, what it does not, and where the courts have and have not gotten involved.

What Dupixent Is, and Why That Matters Her

Dupixent is an injectable biologic, generic name dupilumab, developed by Regeneron and Sanofi. The FDA approved it in March 2017 for adults with moderate-to-severe eczema (atopic dermatitis). Its approved uses have expanded steadily since. The label now covers eczema in patients as young as six months, asthma, COPD, two sinus and nasal conditions, eosinophilic esophagitis, prurigo nodularis, chronic hives, and bullous pemphigoid, a blistering skin disease. That breadth matters here, because it means a great many people take this drug.

I want to be clear about something before going further, rather than tucking it at the end: for a lot of people this medication works, and works dramatically. Severe atopic dermatitis is not a cosmetic problem. It is relentless itching, broken skin, infection, and lost sleep, and the treatments that came before biologics carried real costs of their own. Any honest discussion of risk has to sit next to that benefit. A drug can be genuinely useful and still carry an under-studied risk. Pretending otherwise is how people end up making bad decisions about their own care.

What Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma Is, and How Common It Is

Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, or CTCL, is a cancer of certain white blood cells that appears first in the skin. Its most common form by far is mycosis fungoides, which accounts for a little more than half of all cases. Sézary syndrome, which the lawsuits also involve, is much rarer and more aggressive. CTCL can be difficult to treat, and in its advanced stages it is serious.

Two things about it matter for everything that follows.

First, it is genuinely rare. An analysis of U.S. cancer-registry data from 2000 to 2018, drawn from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER program, put the overall CTCL rate at roughly 8.6 cases per million people per year, with mycosis fungoides making up about 5.4 of those. That figure describes the general population rather than people with atopic dermatitis, so treat it as a rough floor and not as your own number.

It is worth knowing anyway, because the studies below mostly report relative risk: how much more often something happens in one group than another. Several times a very small number is still a small number. Where absolute rates do get published they stay small on every side — one 2026 cohort put lymphoma of all kinds at 1.5 cases per thousand person-years on dupilumab, against 0.8, 1.5 and 1.7 for three comparison drugs. That is all lymphoma in asthma patients, not CTCL in eczema patients, so it does not line up against the figure above; it is here only to show that where anyone publishes the underlying rates, they are small and they run in both directions. Be skeptical of anyone who quotes you a multiplier without telling you what it multiplies.

Second, early CTCL looks a great deal like eczema. It is frequently mistaken for it, sometimes for years. Hold onto that, because it turns out to be the center of the entire scientific dispute.

What the Evidence Shows

Start with the study that put this question on the map.

In 2024, Hasan and colleagues published a retrospective cohort in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, drawing on the TriNetX health-records database. Among eczema patients treated with dupilumab, the odds of a CTCL diagnosis came out roughly four times higher than among eczema patients who had never taken it. Most of those diagnoses arrived more than a year after the first injection. The authors were careful about what they had shown: an association, not proof of cause.

A second 2024 cohort, from Mandel and colleagues in Dermatologic Therapy, landed in the same neighborhood — a relative risk of 4.59 against Hasan’s odds ratio of 4.10 — but reported the opposite timing, with most diagnoses arriving inside the first year rather than after it. That disagreement is not a footnote. Early diagnoses are what you would expect if the drug were revealing a cancer that was already there. Later ones are more consistent with the drug doing something. The two best-known studies on this side of the question do not agree about which pattern they found.

A separate analysis in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology combed FDA adverse-event reports and found CTCL reported alongside dupilumab far more often than alongside comparable drugs in the same database. That is a reporting signal, not an incidence rate — a database of voluntary reports has no denominator, and it records what gets reported rather than what happens.

One detail in that analysis deserves attention, and it cuts less cleanly than it first appears. Dupilumab’s figure was the highest in the group, and the signal was strongest for CTCL specifically; reports of lymphomas outside the skin were, if anything, lower than expected. That narrowness is much of why the question has been taken seriously instead of waved off. But the same analysis found elevated CTCL reporting for several other biologics too — drugs approved for psoriasis and other inflammatory conditions, none of them for eczema. In the study’s second, broader analysis, counting reports where other drugs were also involved, an interleukin-12/23 inhibitor ran higher than dupilumab, and the TNF-α and IL-17 classes rose as well. One reading of that pattern is that misdiagnosis is doing some of the work rather than any single drug, since early CTCL can be mistaken for psoriasis as well as for eczema.

Now the part I want in the same piece as everything above it.

In 2026, Kridin and colleagues published a large cohort study in Frontiers in Medicine, drawing on that same TriNetX network, and reached a different conclusion. Their central finding is the one I would want any patient to understand: atopic dermatitis by itself carries an elevated risk of lymphoma, with no drug involved at all. And when the study compared dupilumab against other systemic treatments for the same disease — roughly 7,800 patients per group — dupilumab did not raise lymphoma risk. In some analyses it trended lower, though the authors were careful to say their confidence intervals “include the possibility of both increased and decreased risks,” and that the reductions they saw were not statistically significant. In fairness both ways, that paper has its own entanglements: one author was employed by TriNetX, a senior author disclosed grants and honoraria from the same company, and another co-author disclosed honoraria and consulting fees from Regeneron and Sanofi.

Still, it reframes everything above it. If the underlying condition already elevates lymphoma risk, then finding more lymphoma among the people treated for that condition does not, on its own, tell you the treatment caused it. It may only tell you that the sickest patients receive the strongest drugs.

And before you weigh any of these against each other, notice something about all of them. Hasan, Mandel, Kridin, and both asthma cohorts below are querying the same health-records network. The disagreement between them is mostly about which patients get compared against which — not about which data anyone is looking at. The adverse-event analyses draw on a different source, but a database of voluntary reports cannot produce a rate. What is missing is a large, genuinely independent cohort, and that is a large part of why better numbers have not settled this.

The asthma research complicates it further, and the two studies below are a clean illustration of the comparison problem. A 2025 cohort in the European Respiratory Journal followed nearly fifteen thousand asthma patients taking dupilumab, measured against patients on inhaled steroids plus a long-acting bronchodilator — a much less heavily treated group — and found a higher rate of lymphoma, with T-cell and NK-cell lymphomas standing out sharply. That finding rests on nineteen cases against fewer than ten, with a confidence interval running from 1.8 to 11.5: a real signal on thin numbers. The same study found something else worth saying plainly: those patients died less often, of any cause, than the comparison group. Critics read that mortality gap as evidence the two groups were not comparable to begin with — that whatever made one group healthier could also explain the lymphoma difference. One such critique, published in July 2026 by four asthma specialists, argued the study’s design could not carry its conclusion; their letter was funded by Sanofi. Later in July, a cohort in CHEST compared between roughly seven and eleven thousand dupilumab patients, depending on the comparison, against people taking other asthma biologics — a far closer match — and found no statistically significant difference in lymphoma, though against one comparator the point estimate ran higher with a confidence interval too wide to rule an effect either in or out.

One more piece belongs on the ledger, and it is more interesting than it first looks. The FDA’s own review of the original approval records three CTCL diagnoses across the entire development program — none of them, the reviewer noted, in the primary safety pool. One was a patient taking the drug in a supporting study, diagnosed with stage IV mycosis fungoides seven weeks in, whose facial features had been changing dramatically for two years beforehand; the reviewer wrote that the disease may have been present at baseline and that the timing “would not appear to implicate dupilumab.” One was a patient on open-label dupilumab in the extension study. And one was in the arm receiving placebo plus a topical steroid in CHRONOS, the year-long pivotal trial, diagnosed four months after that participant stopped study treatment. Three cases, in a program far too small and far too short to settle a question this rare. Two on the drug, one on placebo, and at least one that the agency’s own reviewer thought predated the trial.

The Question Nobody has Answered Yet

Because early CTCL is so often mistaken for eczema, some patients prescribed Dupixent may have already had the lymphoma before their first injection. On that reading, the drug is not causing the cancer. It is revealing one that was already there, either because a treatment for eczema does nothing for skin that was never eczema, or because that failure finally prompts someone to order a biopsy.

Researchers call this the unmasking hypothesis, and it belongs to neither side. Critics of the association — dermatologists writing in the journals, not lawyers — use it to argue the whole thing is an artifact of misdiagnosis. But a 2025 paper in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, built on FDA adverse-event data paired with tissue expression analysis, proposes a route by which the drug could do more than reveal. Blocking the IL-4 and IL-13 receptor leaves more free IL-13 in the surrounding tissue, which the authors argue could stimulate a malignant clone that is already there. Two honest caveats on that paper. Its own title allows for either reading: unmasking or progression. And its reporting figure for conjunctivitis — a well-known, labeled side effect of this drug, and not a cancer — came out higher than its figure for CTCL, which is a useful reminder of how much weight this kind of analysis can carry on its own.

Revealing a cancer and accelerating one are different things. The distance between them is worth a great deal to both sides, and no one has closed it yet. Anyone who tells you otherwise, in either direction, is ahead of the evidence.

Where the FDA Stands

In its October–December 2024 quarterly report on adverse-event signals, posted at the end of March 2025, the FDA listed cutaneous T-cell lymphoma as a potential signal of a serious risk associated with Dupixent, and said it was evaluating the need for regulatory action. That entry has never been updated since it appeared.

The agency has not been inactive on this drug in the meantime. It opened a separate Dupixent signal on ocular infection and inflammation, and in 2026 it required a labeling change on eye disorders. On the lymphoma question, it has published nothing further.

That original listing is a real step, and a modest one. It means the agency saw enough in the adverse-event data to look harder. It does not mean the agency reached a conclusion.

What has not happened matters just as much. The most recently published label carries no lymphoma or malignancy warning. The drug has not been recalled. It remains approved, widely prescribed, and the agency has continued to clear it for new uses.

If You are Taking Dupixent Right Now

Talk to your dermatologist. That is the entire recommendation, and it comes before anything a lawyer tells you.

Do not stop taking a prescribed medication because you read an article. Stopping carries its own risks, and for severe atopic dermatitis those risks are not theoretical. This is a conversation for the physician who knows your skin, your history, and your alternatives.

A few questions tend to make that conversation more useful. Has the skin diagnosed as eczema ever been biopsied? Is there anything about how my disease has behaved, or failed to respond, that would make a second look worthwhile? Given my age and history, how do you weigh this signal against what this drug is doing for me?

Those are medical questions. They belong to your doctor, not to me.

Where the Litigation Stands

The legal system has now gotten involved, and it is worth describing precisely, because this is where coverage tends to overreach.

On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation gathered the federal Dupixent cases into a single proceeding: In re: Dupixent (Dupilumab) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3180. It sits in the District of New Jersey, before Judge Zahid N. Quraishi. Fifteen cases across twelve federal districts were before the Panel — fourteen transferred in, one already pending in New Jersey — with seven more flagged as likely to follow. The named defendants are Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and Genzyme Corporation.

The manufacturers supported consolidation. The disagreement was over where, and over how wide. Plaintiffs asked for the Northern District of Georgia, with New Jersey or Northern Illinois as alternatives; the manufacturers asked for the Southern District of New York, with two Florida districts as alternatives; the Panel took New Jersey. The manufacturers also asked the Panel to limit the proceeding to cutaneous T-cell lymphoma claims specifically. Plaintiffs resisted, pointing to research they say links the drug to T-cell lymphomas elsewhere in the body, though they agreed the MDL should not sweep in B-cell or Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The Panel declined to decide the question — but only because no plaintiff then before it alleged any T-cell lymphoma other than CTCL, and it noted it could expand the MDL later through the ordinary transfer process. So as things stand this is a CTCL proceeding, and that is not necessarily permanent.

Consolidation then gets misread in two ways.

An MDL is not a class action. Each person keeps an individual case. They share a judge and a pretrial process for efficiency, and each one still rises or falls on its own facts.

An MDL is not evidence. Consolidation is an administrative decision that a group of lawsuits raises overlapping questions. It is not a finding that the drug causes cancer, and it is not a ruling on the science. Treating the existence of a lawsuit as proof of the claim inside it is exactly the error this area invites. What these cases allege is that Dupixent caused or accelerated the plaintiffs’ cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and that the manufacturers failed to warn adequately about that risk. Allegations are not findings.

Who These Cases Actually Involve

The lawsuits concern a specific group: people who took Dupixent and were later diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, including mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome, and the families of those who died from it.

I want to be precise about that, because it is easy for a piece like this to drift. You start by describing patients with a particular cancer and end by inviting anyone who ever took the medication to call. Having taken Dupixent is not an injury. If you took the drug and you are well, there is nothing here for you.

If you were diagnosed with CTCL after taking Dupixent, the questions a lawyer would actually put to your records are narrow and factual. What were you prescribed, and when. When did the diagnosis come. What did the biopsies show, and was there an earlier one that got read as something else.

In a pharmaceutical case, the timeline is where a lawyer starts. Filing deadlines vary by state and by the circumstances of the diagnosis. Find out what yours is early. It is not a question to leave until you feel ready.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Dupixent cause cancer?

No one can answer that yet. Two dermatology studies report roughly four-fold higher risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in dupilumab-treated patients, and a cohort of asthma patients found a smaller but significant increase in lymphoma generally. Other large studies found no significant increase and suggested the underlying eczema explains much of the association. The FDA is evaluating the question. The label carries no lymphoma warning and the drug has not been recalled.

Should I stop taking Dupixent?

Not on the strength of anything you read here. That decision belongs to you and your dermatologist, who can weigh this against what the medication is doing for your disease and what your alternatives are.

Is this a class action?

No. It is a multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 3180 in New Jersey, where individual cases are coordinated for pretrial purposes but remain individual cases.

Does the MDL mean the drug has been proven dangerous?

No. Consolidation is a case-management decision about efficiency. The underlying allegations still have to be proven.

My eczema was never biopsied. Does that matter?

It might, and it is worth raising with your dermatologist. Because early CTCL and eczema can look alike, whether and when tissue was examined is often the most informative part of the record, medically and legally.

Why Bring a Case Like This to Our Firm

We are trial lawyers, and we build pharmaceutical claims to be tried. Attorneys now at this firm have been appointed to plaintiffs’ leadership in national pharmaceutical multidistrict litigations including Vioxx, Zyprexa, Actos, Benicar, Abilify, Zantac and Depo-Provera.

At this stage the work is mostly reading records and telling people what the evidence will and will not carry. The science here is unsettled, and I would rather tell someone their case is difficult than sign them up and let them find out later. If you were diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after taking Dupixent and you want an honest read on where you stand, contact Rafferty Domnick Cunningham & Yaffa or call (561) 516-5168. There is no charge for the consultation.

About the Author

Jack W. Lurton, III is a medical malpractice and mass tort attorney at Rafferty Domnick Cunningham & Yaffa, P.A., with more than two decades of experience in civil litigation. Admitted in Florida and Alabama, he has tried medical malpractice, personal injury, wrongful death, and products liability cases, with extensive jury trial experience in Pensacola and Panama City. His mass tort work includes the nationwide Accutane litigation. Raised in Pensacola, he has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in complex cases. Read Jack’s full profile.

This article is general information, not legal or medical advice. Dupixent is an FDA-approved medication and this article does not recommend for or against taking it. Do not start or stop any prescribed treatment without talking to your physician. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Related: Dupixent Lawsuits · Mass Tort & Dangerous Drug Litigation · Depo-Provera Lawsuits

Sources

1. Hasan I, Parsons L, Duran S, Zinn Z. “Dupilumab therapy for atopic dermatitis is associated with increased risk of cutaneous T cell lymphoma: A retrospective cohort study.” J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024;91(2):255–258. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2024.03.039. PMID 38588818. OR 4.1003 (95% CI 2.055–8.192); TriNetX; 27 of 41 CTCL diagnoses more than one year after first use; authors state the association “does not prove causality.”
2. Mandel J, et al. “Increased Risk of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma Development after Dupilumab Use for Atopic Dermatitis.” Dermatol Ther. 2024;2024:9924306. doi:10.1155/2024/9924306. PMID 39668908. RR 4.59 (95% CI 2.459–8.567), P<0.0001; TriNetX; 19,612 matched pairs; 34 of 55 cases within the first year.
3. Lavin L, Dusza S, Geller S. “Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma after Dupilumab Use: A Real-World Pharmacovigilance Study of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.” J Invest Dermatol. 2025;145(1):211–214.e1 (online 28 June 2024). doi:10.1016/j.jid.2024.06.1272. PMID 38945437. Monotherapy CTCL ROR — dupilumab highest at 8.81 (7.1–10.9); ustekinumab/IL-12-23 5.8; IL-23 4.0; IL-17 3.3; TNFα 2.0. Polytherapy — dupilumab 10.35 (8.5–12.6); IL-12/23 13.5 (10.2–17.9). Non-cutaneous lymphomas ROR 0.44 (0.4–0.5).
4. Kridin K, Bieber K, Olbrich H, et al. “Dupilumab treatment is not associated with changes in lymphoma risk in atopic dermatitis and other type 2 inflammatory diseases: data from a large-scale retrospective cohort study.” Front Med (Lausanne). Vol. 12, art. 1702736; published online 20 January 2026. doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1702736. PMID 41641262; PMCID PMC12864119. TriNetX; dupilumab-vs-other-systemics comparison \~7,840 per group. Authors note confidence intervals “include the possibility of both increased and decreased risks” and that observed reductions were not statistically significant. Conflicts: one author employed by TriNetX, LLC; a senior author discloses grants and honoraria from TriNetX; a co-author (Thaçi) discloses honoraria, advisory and consulting fees from Regeneron and Sanofi.
5. Ma KS, et al. “Dupilumab and lymphoma risk among patients with asthma: a population-based cohort study.” Eur Respir J. 2025;66(3):2500139 (online 19 June 2025). doi:10.1183/13993003.00139-2025. PMID 40537179. TriNetX. Comparator was inhaled corticosteroid + LABA (14,936 vs 734,126), not another biologic. Lymphoma HR 1.79 (1.19–2.71); T/NK-cell lymphoma HR 4.58 (1.82–11.53), on 19 cases vs fewer than 10; all-cause mortality HR 0.65 (0.57–0.74). Accompanying editorial: Davies TJ & Pavord ID, Eur Respir J. 2025;66(3):2501321.
6. Ma KS, et al. “Reply: Addressing unmeasured confounding and detection bias in dupilumab–lymphoma association.” Eur Respir J. 2026;67(2):2502432. doi:10.1183/13993003.02432-2025. Published 19 February 2026, the same day as the two letters it answers (Lipworth et al., 67(2):2501380; Celis-Preciado & Couillard, 67(2):2501387).
7. Bacharier LB, Busse WW, Jackson DJ, Katial RK. “Critical flaws in: ‘Dupilumab and lymphoma risk among patients with asthma: a population-based cohort study.'” Eur Respir J. 2026;68(1):2501565. doi:10.1183/13993003.01565-2025. PMID 42425748. Published 9 July 2026. Support statement: “This work was supported by Sanofi Genzyme.” All four authors additionally disclose support from Sanofi and Regeneron. Argues the mortality benefit “dwarfs” the lymphoma signal and indicates residual confounding. No reply from Ma et al. as of 8 August 2026.
8. Liao KM, Huang SC, Kuo CY, Hsu WH, Tsai YW, Wu JY, Lai CC. “Risk of Lymphoma in Patients with Asthma Treated with Dupilumab Compared with Other Biologic Agents: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” CHEST, published online 28 July 2026. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2026.07.5213. PMID 42521147. TriNetX. Lymphoma per 1,000 person-years: dupilumab 1.5 in each matched comparison, against omalizumab 0.8 (HR 1.25, 0.78–2.00; n=10,841 per arm), mepolizumab 1.5 (HR 0.91, 0.53–1.56; n=8,088), benralizumab 1.7 (HR 0.84, 0.47–1.51; n=7,330).
9. Cabrera-Perez JS, Carey VJ, Odejide OO, et al. “Integrative epidemiology and immunotranscriptomics uncover a risk and potential mechanism for cutaneous lymphoma unmasking or progression with dupilumab therapy.” J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2025;155(5):1584–1594. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2024.10.028. PMID 39521279. FAERS disproportionality — CTCL PRR 30.0 (25.0–35.9); conjunctivitis PRR 35.6, higher than CTCL for a well-known labeled non-malignant effect — paired with reanalysis of public RNA-seq. Not experimental mechanism.
10. U.S. FDA, “October–December 2024 | New Safety Information or Potential Signals of Serious Risks,” FDA Adverse Event Monitoring System (renamed from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, 11 March 2026). Dupixent / cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: “FDA is evaluating the need for regulatory action.” Data as of 6 March 2025; content current as of 31 March 2025; never updated since. [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/fda-adverse-event-monitoring-system-aems/october-december-2024-new-safety-information-or-potential-signals-serious-risks-identified-fda](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/fda-adverse-event-monitoring-system-aems/october-december-2024-new-safety-information-or-potential-signals-serious-risks-identified-fda)
11. U.S. FDA, Dupixent prescribing information, revised April 2026. accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda\_docs/label/2026/761055s074lbl.pdf. Nine indications, §§1.1–1.9. No lymphoma or malignancy language anywhere in the label. SUPPL-82 (16 April 2026) added ocular language to §5.2, required by FDA under FDCA §505(o)(4) by letter of 4 March 2026. ⚑ SUPPL-76 has an action date of 15 July 2026 and its label is not yet posted — the copy deliberately avoids any indication count or “most recent approval” claim for this reason.
12. U.S. FDA, Clinical Review, BLA 761055 (Carr B, review completed 15 March 2017), § “Malignancy – Mycosis Fungoides or Cutaneous T-Cell Dyscrasias.” accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda\_docs/nda/2017/761055Orig1s000MedR.pdf, review pp. 135 and 166. “Mycosis fungoides and ‘cutaneous T-Cell dyscrasias’ were not reported in the Primary Safety Pool.” Three diagnoses: subject 840034007 (dupilumab 300 mg QW, study 1314, stage IV MF day 48–49, facial features changed “dramatically” over the preceding two years — reviewer: history “suggests that this subject’s mycosis fungoides may have been present at baseline… the timing of the diagnosis relative to treatment duration would not appear to implicate dupilumab”); subject 1416-840036006 (open-label extension 1225, day 89); subject 036004008 (placebo + topical corticosteroid, study 1224 / CHRONOS, 124 days after discontinuing study treatment).
13. JPML, Transfer Order, In re: Dupixent (Dupilumab) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3180, Doc. 47 (J.P.M.L. June 4, 2026), signed by Acting Chair Matthew F. Kennelly. Fifteen actions across twelve districts plus seven potential tag-alongs; fourteen transferred (one already pending in D.N.J.). Defendants supported centralization in S.D.N.Y., alternatively S.D. Fla. or M.D. Fla.; movants sought N.D. Ga., alternatively D.N.J. or N.D. Ill. Panel declined to rule on limiting scope to CTCL because “none of the plaintiffs in the actions before us allege that they have or had a T-cell lymphoma other than CTCL or one of its subtypes,” noting future expansion could be handled through conditional transfer.
14. Cai ZR, Chen ML, Weinstock MA, Kim YH, Novoa RA, Linos E. “Incidence Trends of Primary Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma in the US From 2000 to 2018: A SEER Population Data Analysis.” JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(11):1690–1692. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3236. PMID 36048455. Overall CTCL 8.55 per million per year; mycosis fungoides 5.42 (56.6% of cases); Sézary syndrome 0.21 (1.8%). 18 SEER registries.