MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405040200 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-209251

Incidence and Prevalence of Clinically Detected Smoldering Multiple Myeloma Among the General Population

2024· article· en· W4405040200 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Victor H. Jimenez‐Zepeda, Irwindeep Sandhu, Michael P. Chu, Kathryn N. Rankin, Arleigh McCurdy, Hyra Sapru, Christopher Cipkar, Edward H. Koo, Benjamin Patrick, M. Henia, Christopher R. McCudden, Alissa Visram

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIncidence (geometry)Multiple myelomaMedicinePopulationInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Emerging data shows that early therapeutic intervention in patients with high risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) may improve outcomes. While treatment of high-risk SMM is not standard of care in Canada, understanding the epidemiology of SMM in our region is important to contextualize the future healthcare resource implications of SMM treatment. Therefore, this study's primary aim was to assess the incidence and prevalence of clinically- detected SMM among the general population over time, diagnosed as part of routine standard of care. Though a recent population-level screening study has shown that among screened patients, the prevalence of SMM in the general population over 40 years old is 0.53% (Thorsteindottir et al. BCJ 2023), we hypothesize that the prevalence of clinically-detected SMM population will be much lower. Methods: This retrospective observational study included all patients in the Champlain Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) found to have an abnormal monoclonal protein (MCP) (an abnormal serum or urine protein electrophoresis or immunofixation, or free light chain [FLC] ratio) between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2022. Charts were reviewed to identify patients initially diagnosed with or progressing to SMM. Healthcare services in Ontario, Canada are provided through regional LHINs. The Ottawa Hospital is the only tertiary care and hematology referral center in the Champlain LHIN, therefore, we assumed that all incident cases of SMM were evaluated at our center and included in this study. To provide population-based incidence and prevalence rates of SMM, the adult population of individuals living within the Champlain LHIN was taken from the published 2016 and 2021 census data. The incidence of SMM was defined as the date a patient met clinical criteria for SMM (bone marrow [BM] plasma cells 10-59% in the absence of myeloma defining events [MDE], or MCP ≥30 g/L and no MDE if no bone marrow performed). The prevalence of SMM was defined as the number of patients actively followed for SMM at our institution during the relevant time-period. The date of last follow up was July 1, 2024. Results: A total of 5948 people had an abnormal MCP between 2010-2022, of whom 229 (3.9%) were diagnosed with SMM. Of the 229 SMM patients, the initial diagnosis was MGUS in 74 (32%) and SMM in 155 (68%) patients. Among the 229 SMM patients, 9 (4%) met criteria for high risk SMM based on the Mayo 20/20/20 score (Lakshman et al. BCJ 2018). However, given the initial lack of availability of the FLC test during the entire study period, FLC data was missing in 82 (36%) of patients. Among SMM patients, the median MCP at the time of first evaluation was 17.7 (IQR 10.3-29.5) g/L if diagnosed between 2010-2014, 13.5 (IQR 6.7-21.9) if diagnosed between 2015-2019, and 9.3 (IQR 3.5-14.4) g/L if evaluated between 2020-2022. A baseline BM evaluation was performed among 79% (n=46) and 94% (n=157) of patients diagnosed with SMM between 2010-2014 (n=62) and 2015-2022 (n=167), respectively. Overall, 108 (47%) of SMM patients were alive and had been clinically evaluated since July 1, 2023. The incidence of SMM among per 100,000 people in the general population (n=1,230,655 in 2011; n=1,292,639 in 2016; n=1,394,070 in 2021) increased from 0.5 cases in 2011, to 0.9 cases in 2016, to 1.4 cases in 2021. If restricting to only people aged ≥40, the incidence of SMM per 100,000 people in the general population (n=623,370 in 2011, n=670,195 in 2016, and n=719,920 in 2021) was 1 case in 2011, 1.8 cases in 2016 and 2.8 cases in 2021. The prevalence of SMM per 100,000 people in the general population was 6.9 cases in 2011 (n=21), 7.7 (n=58) in 2016, and 11.3 (n=114) in 2021. The incidence of SMM among patients with an abnormal MCP increased from 1.6% (n=6 SMM; n=378 abnormal MCP) in 2011, 2.8% (n=12 SMM; n=12 abnormal MCP) in 2016, to 4.1% (n=20 SMM; n=486 abnormal MCP) in 2021. Conclusion: This large study shows that the prevalence of clinically-detected SMM among adults above age ≥40 is lower than reported in a universally screened patient population. While the incidence of SMM among patients with an abnormal MCP and among the general population has increased over time, the abnormal MCP size at diagnosis has decreased over time. This suggests that clinicians are more thoroughly evaluating patients for SMM even with smaller MCPs. Larger cohort studies are needed to evaluate if the incidence of clinically detected high-risk SMM has also increased over time.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,180
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,359

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,323
Écart entre enseignants0,297 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→