MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W802914929 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.5704.5704

A Systematic Literature Review on the Epidemiological Burden in Multiple Myeloma

2014· article· en· W802914929 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Teresa Rizzo, Yingxin Xu, Ike Iheanacho, Sumeet Panjabi

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineEpidemiologyMEDLINEIncidence (geometry)Multiple myelomaSystematic reviewFamily medicineDemographyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a rare condition, that is, one defined by the European Medicines Agency as affecting no more than 5 in 10,000 people in the EU. It is also the second most common hematologic malignancy. MM is particularly burdensome because most patients eventually relapse and develop refractory disease. To help characterize the epidemiological burden and trends associated with the condition we conducted a systematic literature review to identify published evidence on outcomes including overall incidence and prevalence and survival in patients with relapsed (R) or relapsed and refractory (RR) MM. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases for articles in English published between 2003 and 2013. Identified studies were initially screened using information in the title and abstract, and then by examining the full text using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These criteria specified that to be included, studies had to have reported real-world data on the incidence or prevalence of MM or survival in patients with RMM/RRMM in the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the UK. To improve generalizability, only studies with a sample size of 100 patients or more were included. Results: The review identified a total of 1,632 studies across MEDLINE and Embase. Following screening, 22 studies met the predefined selection criteria (as described above in the Methods section). Most studies (n=21) were retrospective in design, of which 10 studies reported on incidence and/or prevalence outcomes and 12 on survival. Specifically, incidence was reported for populations in Brazil (n=1), Canada (n=1), France (n=1), Germany (n=1), Italy (n=1), Korea (n=3), and Taiwan (n=2); two of these studies also reported prevalence data for populations in Brazil and Korea. The studies on survival included patients who received a range of 1 to 9 previous treatments for MM and were conducted in Canada (n=1), France (n=1), Germany (n=2), Italy (n=4), South Korea (n=1), Spain (n=1) and the UK (n=2). No published studies for any of the outcomes of interest were identified for populations in the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, or Switzerland. In the studies that reported a crude (i.e., age-unadjusted) incidence for MM, the incidence ranged from around 1.4 to 2.1 cases per 100,000 population per year. Of note, the incidence was found to have risen in recent decades, from 1.0 case per 100,000 population in 1999 to 1.5 cases per 100,000 in 2009 in Korea (a rise of 4.1% each year; p < 0.05) and from 0.36 cases per 100,000 in the period from 1979 to 1983 to 1.6 cases per 100,000 in 2009 in Taiwan (a 4.4-fold increase between these years). The prevalence of MM was 5.7 per 100,000 population from October 2009 to March 2010 in Brazil and 5.5 per 100,000 population in January 2010 in Korea. Among patients who received chemotherapy regimens to manage RMM/RRMM, overall survival ranged from 12.4 months in those treated with bendamustine (following a median of 4 previous lines of therapy that included alkylators, steroids, an immunomodulatory drug, and bortezomib) to 26.2 months for those treated with thalidomide with or without the use of salvage therapy (following a median of 1 prior therapy). One study that explored predictors of overall survival found that this outcome was significantly worse in patients who previously receive more lines of treatment (3 or above) compared with those who received fewer lines of treatment (18.1 months compared with 38.9 months, respectively; p = 0.019). Conclusions: Recently published data on key epidemiological outcomes in MM are limited, even for several industrialized countries, perhaps reflecting the condition’s rare-disease status. The available evidence suggests that the incidence of MM has been rising in recent decades, though the overall incidence remains low enough for MM to still be considered a rare disease. Despite the range of chemotherapeutic options that are currently available, survival in patients who have RMM/RRMM is poor and worsens with each relapse and with increasing number of prior lines of treatment. This pattern of decreasing survival in later lines of treatment suggests the need for additional therapies to improve outcomes in MM and RMM/RRMM. Disclosures Rizzo: Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary: Consultancy; Evidera: Employment. Xu:Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary: Consultancy; Evidera: Employment. Iheanacho:Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary: Consultancy; Evidera: Employment. Panjabi:Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary: Employment, Equity Ownership.

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)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,023
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,056

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,051
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0090,007
Bibliométrie0,0230,024
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

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 Opus0,041
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,275 · 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'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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