Multiple Myeloma Incidence and Mortality Around the Globe; Interrelations Between Health Access and Quality, Economic Resources, and Patient Empowerment

Heinz Ludwig, Susie Novis Durie, Angela Meckl, Axel Hinke, Brian Durie, Heinz Ludwig, Susie Novis Durie, Angela Meckl, Axel Hinke, Brian Durie

Abstract

Background: The interrelation between the worldwide incidence, mortality, and survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and relevant factors such as Health Care Access and Quality (HAQ) index, gross domestic product (GDP), health care expenditures, access to cancer drugs, and patient empowerment has not been addressed before.

Material and methods: Epidemiologic data were obtained from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The mortality-to-incidence ratio (expressed as 1-MIR) was used as proxy for 5-year survival. Information on health expenditure was obtained from Bloomberg Health-Care Efficacy ranking, the HAQ Index was used as a measure of available health care. For patient empowerment, visits to the Web site of the International Myeloma Foundation were used as proxy. Data on GDP and population per country were assessed from the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations Population Division, respectively. Possible associations were analyzed using Spearman's rank-order correlation.

Results: The worldwide incidence of MM is currently 160,000, and mortality is 106,000. Age-standardized myeloma incidence varies between 0.54 and 5.3 per 100,000 and correlates with 1-MIR, patient empowerment, HAQ Index, and access to cancer drugs. The 1-MIR varies between 9% and 64% and is closely related to myeloma incidence, HAQ Index, patient empowerment, access to cancer drugs, and health care expenditures.

Conclusion: The global incidence and outcome of MM shows significant disparities, indicating under-recognition and suboptimal treatment in many parts of the globe. Results also highlight the importance of economic resources, access to and quality of health care, and patient education for improving diagnosis and survival of patients with MM.

Implications for practice: Multiple myeloma accounts for 10% of all hematological malignancies and has moved to the forefront of clinical interest because of the significant advances in medical treatment. Diagnosis depends on laboratory tests, imaging, and professional expertise, particularly in patients without a significant M-component. The present data show a substantial worldwide variation in incidence and mortality, that is mainly due (apart from variations due to ethnicity and lifestyle) to disparities in access to and quality of health care, a parameter strongly related to the economic development of individual countries. Improvement of quality of care and, consequently, in outcome is associated with patient empowerment.

Keywords: Health care quality and access; Incidence; Mortality; Mortality-to-incidence ratio; Multiple myeloma; Patient empowerment.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.

© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Estimated age‐standardized incidence rates of multiple myeloma 2018. Used with permission of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Incidence per 100,000 in relation to 1‐MIR (shown as percentage) (A), HAQ Index (B), visits to the IMF Web site per 100,000 (patient empowerment) (C), and access to cancer drugs (D). Abbreviations: MIR, mortality‐to‐incidence ratio; IMF, International Myeloma Foundation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Relationship between mortality and incidence in countries with >1 million inhabitants (n = 150).
Figure 4
Figure 4
1‐MIR in countries with number of visits to the International Myeloma Foundation Web site available. Abbreviation: MIR, mortality‐to‐incidence ratio.
Figure 5
Figure 5
1‐MIR in relation to HAQ Index (A), health care spending (B), visits to the IMF Web site per 100,000 (patient empowerment) (C), and access to cancer drugs (D). Abbreviations: MIR, mortality‐to‐incidence ratio; HAQ, health care access and quality; IMF, International Myeloma Foundation.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Visits to the IMF Web site per 100,000 (patient empowerment) in relation to GDP (A), HAQ Index (B), health care expenditure (C), and access to cancer drugs (D). Abbreviations: GDP, gross domestic product; IMF, International Myeloma Foundation.

References

    1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 2019;144:1941–1953.
    1. Choi E, Lee S, Nhung BC et al. Cancer mortality‐to‐incidence ratio as an indicator of cancer management outcomes in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Epidemiol Health 2017;39:e2017006.
    1. Stenning‐Persivale K, Franco MJS, Cordero‐Morales A et al. The mortality‐incidence ratio as an indicator of five‐year cancer survival in metropolitan Lima. Ecancermedicalscience 2018;12:799.
    1. Asadzadeh Vostakolaei F, Karim‐Kos HE, Janssen‐Heijnen ML et al. The validity of the mortality to incidence ratio as a proxy for site‐specific cancer survival. Eur J Public Health 2011;21:573–577.
    1. Sunkara V, Hébert JR. The application of the mortality‐to‐incidence ratio for the evaluation of cancer care disparities globally. Cancer 2016;122:487–848.
    1. International Myeloma Foundation website. . Accessed July 30, 2019.
    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cancer today website. . Accessed July 30, 2019.
    1. Gross domestic product, domestic currency. International Financial Statistics. . Accessed July 31, 2019.
    1. Data query. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs population dynamics. . Accessed July 31, 2019.
    1. Miller LJ, Lu W. These are the economies with the most (and least) efficient health care. Bloomberg News websie. Sepember 18, 2018. . Accessed August 2, 2019.
    1. GBD 2016 Healthcare Access and Quality Collaborators . Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2018;391:2236–2271.
    1. IQVIA website. . Accessed July 31, 2019.
    1. Alexander DD, Mink PJ, Adami HO et al. Multiple myeloma: A review of the epidemiologic literature. International journal of cancer. 2007;120(suppl 12):40–61.
    1. Cancer registration statistics, England. Office for National Statistics website. . Accessed October 16, 2019.
    1. VanValkenburg ME, Pruitt GI, Brill IK et al. Family history of hematologic malignancies and risk of multiple myeloma: Differences by race and clinical features. Cancer Dauses Control 2016;27:81–91.
    1. Chubb D, Weinhold N, Broderick P et al. Common variation at 3q26.2, 6p21.33, 17p11.2 and 22q13.1 influences multiple myeloma risk. Nat Genet 2013;45:1221–1225.
    1. Marinac CR, Birmann BM, Lee IM et al. Body mass index throughout adulthood, physical activity, and risk of multiple myeloma: A prospective analysis in three large cohorts. Brit J Cancer 2018;118:1013–1019.
    1. Sergentanis TN, Zagouri F, Tsilimidos G et al. Risk factors for multiple myeloma: A systematic review of meta‐analyses. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015;15:563–577.e1–3.
    1. World Health Organization ; UNICEF. A Vision for Primary Health Care in the 21st Century. Geneva, Switzerland; World Health Organization: 2018. . Accessed July 31, 2019.
    1. Vrdoljak E, Bodoky G, Jassem J et al. Expenditures on oncology drugs and cancer mortality‐to‐incidence ratio in Central and Eastern Europe. The Oncologist 2019;24:e30–e37.
    1. Lim SS, Updike RL, Kaldjian AS et al. Measuring human capital: A systematic analysis of 195 countries and territories, 1990‐2016. Lancet 2018;392:1217–1234.
    1. Rajkumar SV. Value and cost of myeloma therapy. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2018;38:662–666.
    1. Parkin DM, Bray F. Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: Principles and methods Part II. Completeness. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:756–764.
    1. Hollmann S, Moldaver D, Goyert N et al. A U.S. cost analysis of triplet regimens for patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2019;25:449–459.
    1. Pessoa de Magãlhaes Filho RJ, Crusoe E, Riva E et al. Analysis of availability and access of anti‐myeloma drugs and impact on the management of multiple myeloma in Latin American Countries. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2019;19:e43–e50.
    1. India and Ukraine Haemato‐oncology Group ; Garg A, Morgunskyy M, Belagali Y et al. Management of multiple myeloma and usage of bortezomib: Perspective from India and Ukraine. Front Oncol 2016;6:243.
    1. European Atlas of Access to Myeloma Treatment website. . Accessed July 31, 2019.
    1. Tocchi C, McCorkle R, Knobf MT. Multidisciplinary specialty teams: A self‐management program for patients with advanced cancer. J Adv Pract Oncol 2015;6:408–416.
    1. Cormican O, Dowling M. Living with relapsed myeloma: Symptoms and self‐care strategies. J Clin Nurs 2018;27:1713–1721.
    1. Batouli A, Jahanshahi P, Gross CP et al. The global cancer divide: Relationships between national healthcare resources and cancer outcomes in high‐income vs. middle‐ and low‐income countries. J Epidemiol Glob Health 2014;4:115–124.
    1. Cordero‐Morales A, Savitzky MJ, Stenning‐Persivale K et al. Conceptual considerations and methodological recommendations for the use of the mortality‐to‐incidence ratio in time‐lagged, ecological‐level analysis for public health systems‐oriented cancer research. Cancer 2016;122:486–487.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner