MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417009446 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2792

The impact of frailty on real world outcomes for multiple myeloma patients in England – a cohort study from the uncover study group and ukmra frailty group.

2025· article· en· W4417009446 sur OpenAlexaff
Thea Chandler, Indrani Karpha, Nurunnahar Akter, Temitope Erinfolami, Hanhua Liu, Brogan Johnston, Yeong Phang Lim, Nagesh Kalakonda, Gillian Brearton, Sally Moore, Hira Mian, Frances Seymour, Christopher Parrish, Charlotte Pawlyn, Catrin Tudur Smith, Andrew R. Pettitt, Gordon Cook

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University Medical Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMultiple myelomaProportional hazards modelPoisson regressionCancerIncidence (geometry)Cohort studyCohortSurvival analysisRelative survival

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Evidence for disease outcomes in Multiple Myeloma (MM) is largely derived from clinical trials which often exclude frail patients. UNCOVER is a blood cancer health data research programme that utilises the National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD). NCRD includes information on all patients diagnosed with all types of cancer in NHS institutions in England (Int J Epidemiol 2020; 49(1):16–16h). Here, we report the demographics, incidence and survival of patients with myeloma in the UNCOVER dataset with particular emphasis on frailty. Methods Data was selected for patients diagnosed with MM (ICD-O-3: 97323, 97343, 97313) between Jan 2014 and Dec 2021 with follow-up until July 2023. International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) modified frailty scores (non-frail 0-1, frail 2-5. Facon et al, 2019) could be assigned to patients who received systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT). Crude and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated and compared between groups using Poisson regression, and calendar time trends were assessed. All-cause overall survival (OS) was assessed using KM methods and an adjusted Cox regression model. Cause-specific (Fine-Gray model) and relative (Pohar Perme method) survival were estimated. All models were adjusted for age at diagnosis, gender, index of multiple deprivation (IMD) quintile and government region, while Cox and Fine-Gray models were also adjusted for ethnicity and Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI). OS and net survival (NS) were estimated for frail and non-frail groups and a multivariable Cox model fitted that included frailty status. Results 39,521 MM patients were identified in total. 25.3% were >80 years of age, with the majority being <75 (58.5%). Frailty score was available for 23,674 patients [frail n=9,487 (40.1%); non-frail 14,187 (59.9%)]. 4,416 (11.2%) patients had a score >3 and would be considered ’ultra-frail’. In all MM patients, adjusted IRRs increased with age and were higher in males [1.62 (1.59-1.66, 95% CI), p<0.001], in most deprived IMD quintiles compared to the least deprived [IMD1 vs 5, 1.05 (1.01-1.08), p<0.001], and lower in all 8 provincial regions compared to London [North West 0.63 (0.61-0.66), p<0.001]. Adjusted IRRs were higher for Black people [1.45 (1.38-1.53), p<0.001] and lower for Asian people [0.44 (0.42-0.47), p<0.001] and those of mixed/other ethnicity [0.47 (0.43-0.50), p<0.001] compared to White people. Median follow-up was 33.7 (IQR: 14.3–58.7) months. 21,987 (55.6%) patients died with median OS 49.5 (48.5–50.5) months and NS 58.7% and 45.3% at 3 and 5 years. Hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was higher for males [1.06 (1.03–1.08)] and increased with age [10.2 (8.1–12.1) for 81–99 vs <40], deprivation [1.29 (1.22–1.34) for IMD1 vs 5], comorbidity [1.46 (1.41–1.50) for CCI>1 vs ≤1], and provincial regions vs London [1.21 (1.15–1.28) for North West]. HR was lower in all other ethnic groups compared to White [Black,0.77 (0.72-0.83); Asian, 0.80 (0.65, 0.98); p<0.001]. OS and NS increased for cohorts diagnosed in successive years until 2019 [HR 0.81 (0.77, 0.85) for 2019 vs 2014]. Compared to non-frail patients, frail patients had a shorter OS (median 31 vs 78 months; p<0.001), higher all-cause mortality [HR 1.75 (1.66-1.84), p<0.001] and shorter NS (44.5% vs 73.1% at 3 years, 26.0% vs 58.1% at 5 years). Patients aged 76-80 who were classified as frail had a shorter NS at 5 years compared to non-frail patients aged 76-80 (28.2% vs 39.1%). Deprivation was associated with lower NS at 5 years in both non-frail (51.6% vs 61.4% for IMD1 vs IMD5) and frail (23.9% vs 26.1%) patients. The same was true of region (NS at 5 years for North East vs London: 55.9% vs 61.4% in non-frail group; 22.6% vs 30.0% in frail group). Conclusion This national cohort study highlights variation in incidence, survival, and mortality outcomes within the English MM population. Deprivation and regional disparities in survival were evident in both frail and non-frail cohorts, suggesting a synergistic effect between frailty and socioeconomic disadvantage. Disparities persisted among patients categorised as frail by modified IMWG due to factors other than age (<80 years), suggesting that frailty plays a prognostic role independently of age. These findings highlight the need for tailored clinical approaches and policy interventions to improve outcomes in multiple myeloma.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
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 enseignants0,048
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,096

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,342
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · 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

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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