MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310163270 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-158277

Need for Dynamic Frailty Risk Assessment Among Older Adults with Multiple Myeloma: A Population-Based Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4310163270 on OpenAlexaff
Hira Mian, Tanya M. Wildes, Ravi Vij, Ajay Major, Mark A. Fiala

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiple myelomaCohortPopulationGerontologyCohort studyOncologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is a cancer of older adults with significant morbidity and mortality. Frail patients are a high-risk subgroup at risk for poor outcomes. While a number of tools have been developed for frailty assessment, many are measured only at baseline and do not take into account changes in frailty over time. Understanding both improvements and deteriorations in frailty over the disease trajectory may have important considerations in modifying treatment delivery based upon a patient's changing fitness status. Electronic frailty indices using a cumulative deficit approach have emerged as an important tool for identifying frail older adults in clinical practice through the electronic medical record. A cumulative deficit approach allows for characterization of frailty by evaluating an individual's health status as a proportion of ageing-associated deficits an individual has incurred. This approach may allow for a more dynamic measurement of frailty as 'deficits' may drop off when not actively coded or new 'deficits' may accumulate with increasing co-morbidities. Using an administrative database and the cumulative deficit approach to categorizing frailty, we aimed to 1) evaluate the dynamic trajectory of frailty among a cohort of older adults with MM during the first three years following diagnosis 2) identify factors associated with improvements or deterioration of frailty over time. Methods We conducted a retrospective population-based study of adults with MM (ICD-O-3 code 9732) using the SEER-Medicare linked database. Inclusion criteria included MM patients aged 66 or older treated with novel agents in first line between 2007-2014. Frailty was defined according to a previously validated frailty index based on the cumulative deficit definition (Cheung et al. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 2021). An annual frailty index (possible range 0-1) was calculated using 31 age-related health deficits, identified using diagnostic and procedural codes. Variables used to calculate the frailty index for a given year were drawn from the prior 12 months. Patients were categorized into five pre-defined groups: nonfrail (0-0.10), prefrail (0.11-0.20), mildly frail (0.21-0.30), moderately frail (0.31-0.40) and severely frail (>0.4). A multivariate cox-regression model was conducted at baseline to assess the association of frailty with overall survival (OS) both at baseline and at each landmark interval. Results A total of 4617 patient with MM were identified. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. At baseline, 39% of the patients were categorized as moderately frail or severely frail. In multivariate analysis, older age, female gender, black race, and Medicaid enrollment were associated with higher frailty status. Immunomodulatory drug adminstration during first-line treatment was lower among patients with higher frailty status. There was a clear gradient effect of frailty on OS; the median OS for nonfrail patients was 65 months [95% CI 56-73] compared to 17 months [95% CI 15-19] for severely frail. Compared to nonfrail patients, the mildly frail had a 60% increase in hazard for death, the moderately frail a 104% increase, and the severely frail a 165% increase after controlling for other covariates (all p <0.001). The predictive ability of baseline frailty for OS decreased over time in landmark analyses (Harrell's C Statistic 0.65 at diagnosis, 0.63 at 1 yr, 0.62 at 2 yr, and 0.60 at 3 yr). Trajectories of frailty from baseline over the next three years is shown in Figure 1. One year following diagnosis, 15% of the patients showed in an improvement in the frailty status, 33% had a deterioration, 26% remained the same, and 25% had died. On multivariate analysis, older age, male gender, and Medicaid enrollment were associated with increased odds of worsening frailty status at one year. In landmark analyses at years 1, 2 and 3 post diagnosis, the predictive ability of current frailty status remained fairly consistent (Harrell's C Statistic 0.64-0.65). Conclusion Our study is one of the first to demonstrate the dynamic nature of frailty among older adults with MM. Frailty can both improve and deteriorate over time. Current frailty status is a better predictor of outcomes than baseline frailty status, indicating the need for re-measurement. Future strategies aimed at further assessing and incorporating dynamic frailty monitoring over time are needed to provide more tailored treatment. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207