Sex Differences in Multiple Myeloma Biology but not Clinical Outcomes: Results from 3894 Patients in the Myeloma XI Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sex differences in the incidence and outcomes of several cancers are well established. Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant plasma cell dyscrasia accounting for 2% of all new cancer cases in the UK. There is a clear sex disparity in MM incidence, with 57% of cases in males and 43% in females. The mechanisms behind this are not well understood and the impact of sex on patient outcomes has not been thoroughly explored. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated the association of sex with baseline disease characteristics and outcome in 3894 patients recruited to the phase III UK NCRI Myeloma XI trial, in which treatment exposure to lenalidomide predominated. RESULTS: Females were significantly more likely to have the molecular lesions t(14;16) and del(17p) and were more likely to meet the cytogenetic classification of high-risk (HiR) or ultra-high-risk disease (UHiR). There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the sexes in the overall population. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the genetic lesions involved in the initiation and progression of MM may be different between the sexes. Although females were more likely to have the poor prognosis lesions t(14;16) and del(17p), and were more likely to be assessed as having HiR or UHiR disease, this was not associated with reduced PFS or OS. In female patients the trial treatment may have been able to overcome some of the adverse effects of high-risk cytogenetic lesions. MicroAbstract Multiple myeloma (MM) is more common in males compared to females but the reasons behind this are not well understood and the impact of sex on patient outcomes is unclear. This study demonstrates fundamental differences in genetic lesions underlying the biology of MM between males and females. However, we found that progression-free survival and overall survival were the same in both sexes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".