Socioeconomic Status is Globally a Prognostic Factor for Overall Survival of Multiple Myeloma Patients: Synthesis of Studies and Review of the Literature

Socioeconomic Status and Overall Survival Among Patients With Hematological Malignant Neoplasms

Importance

In recent years, there has been a focus on reducing the socioeconomic gap in survival for hematological malignant neoplasms. Understanding recent developments is important to develop further intervention to improve care.

Objective

To investigate the temporal trend in associations of socioeconomic status (SES) with survival among 3 aggressive hematological malignant neoplasms: multiple myeloma (MM), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide, population-based cohort study used retrospectively collected data from 3 clinical registries of patients diagnosed in Denmark between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2020, with follow-up until December 31, 2021. Analyses were stratified by diagnosis year (2005-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2020). Participants were patients aged 25 to 65 years with hematological malignant neoplasms. Patients with missing data on education were excluded. Data were analyzed from October 14, 2022, to January 2, 2024.

Exposure

Education was used as a proxy for SES and defined low- and high-SES groups based on the completion of tertiary education.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was overall survival (OS), analyzed using Kaplan-Meier (log rank) method and Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for age, sex, performance status, comorbidities, and disease-specific prognostic indices. Two-year OS through time and survival difference were estimated using flexible parametric survival models.

Results

A total of 5677 patients (median [IQR] age, 58 [51-62] years; 3177 [57.0%] male) were assessed, including 1826 patients with MM, 1236 patients with AML, and 2509 patients with DLBCL. The 2-year OS increased over time for patients with MM (78.8% [95% CI, 75.4%-82.3%] to 91.4% [95% CI, 89.3%-93.5%]), AML (42.2% [95% CI, 37.8%-47.1%] to 52.7% [95% CI, 48.0%-57.9%]), and DLBCL (80.1% [95% CI, 77.4%-82.8%] to 88.1% [95% CI, 86.0%-90.3%]). For MM and DLBCL, no association of SES with survival was observed after adjustment (MM: hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.85-1.15]; DLBCL: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.91-1.29]). For AML, a negative association was observed between low SES and survival (HR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.25-1.76]), but the association was attenuated in recent years. The difference in hazard for patients with low SES and AML was observed in the first 2 years after diagnosis.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that survival has improved among patients with these hematological malignant neoplasms. While patients with MM and DLBCL had increased survival in all groups, disparities were observed in AML outcomes, primarily in the first years after diagnosis. These results suggest that differences originate in factors specific to AML.

Hospital facility characteristics and socioeconomic factors on outcomes and treatment in patients with multiple myeloma: National Cancer Database analysis

Previous studies have shown that socioeconomic factors play an important role in multiple myeloma (MM) health outcomes. We postulated that the type of treatment facilities and their volume of cases also affect overall survival, utilization of various therapies including palliative care services in newly diagnosed MM. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we analyzed 174,551 newly diagnosed MM participants from across the country. We found that at high volume facility centers (over 90^th percentile of new patient volume from 2004 to 2016), the median overall survival (OS) was 62.3 months versus 35.3 months at lower volume facilities (p <0.001). Similarly, high volume academic cancer centers had an improved median OS of 66.4 months (65.3-67.4 CI) versus 39.2 months (37.9-40.4 months CI) in lower volume academic centers (p <0.001). The odds of utilizing chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and autologous transplants were higher in academic cancer centers compared to community cancer centers, after adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic factors (OR 1.10, 1.23, and 2.06 respectively, all with p<0.001). There was significantly decreased odds of receiving palliative care (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85-0.93) in high volume facilities compared to low volume. Palliative care services were more frequently utilized at integrated network cancers and comprehensive community cancer centers compared to community cancer centers, with similar odds of receiving palliative care between community and academic facility types. Our results likely reflect increased provider experience and resources in higher volume and academic facilities. This highlights the need to integrate resources and improve access to community programs.

Current Main Topics in Multiple Myeloma

Multiple Myeloma (MM) remains a difficult to treat disease mainly due to its biological heterogeneity, of which we are more and more knowledgeable thanks to the development of increasingly sensitive molecular methods that allow us to build better prognostication models. The biological diversity translates into a wide range of clinical outcomes from long-lasting remission in some patients to very early relapse in others. In NDMM transplant eligible (TE) patients, the incorporation of mAb as daratumumab in the induction regimens, followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and consolidation/maintenance therapy, has led to a significant improvement of PFS and OS.; however, this outcome remains poor in ultra-high risk MM or in those who did not achieve a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity. Several trials are exploring cytogenetic risk-adapted and MRD-driven therapies in these patients. Similarly, quadruplets-containing daratumumab, particularly when administered as continuous therapies, have improved outcome of patients not eligible for autologous transplant (NTE). Patients who become refractory to conventional therapies have noticeably poor outcomes, making their treatment a difficult challenge in need of novel strategies. In this review, we will focus on the main points regarding risk stratification, treatment and monitoring of MM, highlighting the most recent evidence that could modify the management of this still incurable disease.

Response and Survival Estimates of Patients With Plasma Cell Myeloma in a Resource-Constrained Setting Using Protocols From High-Income Countries: A Single-Center Experience From Sri Lanka

There is a significant disparity in global cancer care and outcome between countries. Progress in the treatment of symptomatic plasma cell myeloma (PCM) in high-income countries is not seen in low- and middle-income countries.

Is it possible to set up dedicated hemato-oncology centers and use protocols from high-income countries in a resource-constrained setting? It is possible to successfully apply treatment and supportive care protocols in the correct setting of dedicated hemato-oncology centers. Patients with plasma cell myeloma were treated with thalidomide- and/or bortezomib-containing regimens adapted from high-income countries. After a median follow-up of 40.6 months (range, 35.2-59.07 months), the median overall survival (OS) was 84.2 months (95% CI, 60.87 to NA) and the 5-year estimated OS was 65%, comparable to parameters in phase III randomized trials in high-income countries.

Unsupervised machine learning improves risk stratification in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an analysis of the Spanish Myeloma Group

The International Staging System (ISS) and the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) are commonly used prognostic scores in multiple myeloma (MM). These methods have significant gaps, particularly among intermediate-risk groups. The aim of this study was to improve risk stratification in newly diagnosed MM patients using data from three different trials developed by the Spanish Myeloma Group. For this, we applied an unsupervised machine learning clusterization technique on a set of clinical, biochemical and cytogenetic variables, and we identified two novel clusters of patients with significantly different survival. The prognostic precision of this clusterization was superior to those of ISS and R-ISS scores, and appeared to be particularly useful to improve risk stratification among R-ISS 2 patients. Additionally, patients assigned to the low-risk cluster in the GEM05 over 65 years trial had a significant survival benefit when treated with VMP as compared with VTD. In conclusion, we describe a simple prognostic model for newly diagnosed MM whose predictions are independent of the ISS and R-ISS scores. Notably, the model is particularly useful in order to re-classify R-ISS score 2 patients in 2 different prognostic subgroups. The combination of ISS, R-ISS and unsupervised machine learning clusterization brings a promising approximation to improve MM risk stratification.

Examining allostatic load, neighborhood socioeconomic status, symptom burden and mortality in multiple myeloma patients

The objective of this study is to examine the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) and baseline allostatic load (AL) and clinical trial endpoints in patients enrolled in the E1A11 therapeutic trial in multiple myeloma (MM). Study endpoints were symptom burden (pain, fatigue, and bother) at baseline and 5.5 months, non-completion of induction therapy, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Multivariable logistic and Cox regression examined associations between nSES, AL and patient outcomes. A 1-unit increase in baseline AL was associated with greater odds of high fatigue at baseline (adjusted OR [95% CI] = 1.21 [1.08–1.36]) and a worse OS (adjusted hazard ratio, [95% CI] = 1.21 [1.06–1.37]). High nSES was associated with worse baseline bother (middle OR = 4.22 [1.11–16.09] and high 4.49 [1.16–17.43]) compared to low nSES. There was no association between AL or nSES and symptom burden at 5.5 months, non-completion of induction therapy or PFS. Additionally, there was no association between nSES and OS. AL may have utility as a predictive marker for OS among patients with MM and may allow individualization of treatment. Future studies should standardize and validate AL patients with MM.