The impact on early diagnosis and survival outcome of M-protein screening-driven diagnostic approach to multiple myeloma in China: a cohort study

Jing Li, Yue Wang, Peng Liu, Jing Li, Yue Wang, Peng Liu

Abstract

Background: Most multiple myeloma (MM) patients in China were diagnosed only until severe complications occurred. The incidence of MM in China is 7.3 times lower than that of the United States, which could have been underestimated due to high rate of miss diagnosis and diagnostic delay in China. In Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) is routinely incorporated into liver function test panel, and therefore providing us unique opportunities to carry out a hospital-population-based M-protein screening by SPEP and establish a screening-driven diagnostic approach. Methods: A retrospective cohort study analyzing data of patients screened by SPEP and diagnosed with MM from 2014 to 2017 was performed. We compared the baseline features and outcome of patients diagnosed via screen-driven approach and symptom-driven approach. We also analyzed the efficacy of M-protein screening. Results: A total of 690,000 people were screened and 335 eligible MM patients were identified, among which 151 of them were diagnosed via screening-driven approach. Compared to symptom-driven group, patients in screening-driven group had earlier ISS stage disease (P = 0.025), lower frequency of anemia (P = 0.000) and bone lesion (P = 0.012), and lesser number of end-stage symptoms (P = 0.000). M-protein screening approach demonstrated significantly (P = 0.029, HR: 0.415) better outcome (3-yr OS, 76.9%) than those in symptom-driven subgroup (3-yr OS, 46.6%) after being adjusted for age, gender, CRAB symptoms and ECOG score with a Cox proportional hazards model. Furthermore, the annual incidence of MM in Zhongshan Hospital screening population is 20.82/100,000, much higher than that in the whole China despite of selection bias. Conclusion: We concluded that the actual MM incidence in China may have been underestimated and M-protein screening in hospital population by SPEP is an effective approach to improve early diagnosis rate and outcome.

Keywords: China; Multiple myeloma; cancer screening; monoclonal gammopathy.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

© The author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
M-protein screening-driven diagnostic approach. Patients with abnormal narrow band in SPEP would be referred to hematology consultation (inpatient setting) or specialized M-protein outpatient clinic (outpatient setting) for further investigation, including confirmation of monoclonal gammopathy by immunofixation electrophoresis and/or serum free light chain assay, followed by bone marrow test, laboratory tests and bone survey in selected patients. Patients diagnosed with MM would receive treatment and those with SMM or MGUS would be carefully followed-up in specialized clinic. SPEP, serum protein electrophoresis; sFLC, serum free light chain; MM, multiple myeloma; SMM, smoldering myeloma; MGUS, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival in different subgroup.

References

    1. Kyle RA, Larson DR, Therneau TM, Dispenzieri A, Kumar S, Cerhan JR. et al. Long-Term Follow-up of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:241–9.
    1. Landgren O, Kyle RA, Pfeiffer RM, Katzmann JA, Caporaso NE, Hayes RB. et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) consistently precedes multiple myeloma: a prospective study. Blood. 2009;113:5412–7.
    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Estimated number of incident cases, both sexes, multiple myeloma, worldwide in 2013. Accessed August 31, 2018. .
    1. Surveillance epidemiology and end results Fast Stats: an interactive tool for access to SEER cancer statistics, Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute. Updated 2018 Accessed August 31, 2018.
    1. Lu J, Lu J, Chen W, Huo Y, Huang X, Hou J. et al. Clinical features and treatment outcome in newly diagnosed Chinese patients with multiple myeloma: results of a multicenter analysis. Blood Cancer J. 2014;4:e239.
    1. Ailawadhi S, Aldoss IT, Yang D, Razavi P, Cozen W, Sher T. et al. Outcome disparities in multiple myeloma: a SEER-based comparative analysis of ethnic subgroups. Br J Haematol. 2012;158:91–8.
    1. Kyle RA, Durie BG, Rajkumar SV, Landgren O, Blade J, Merlini G. et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma: IMWG consensus perspectives risk factors for progression and guidelines for monitoring and management. Leukemia. 2010;24:1121–7.
    1. Raghupathy R, Ayyappan S, Prabhakar D, Campagnaro EL, Mo FK, Li W. et al. Retrospective study of the incidence and patterns of arterial and venous thrombosis in Chinese versus African American patients with multiple myeloma. British journal of haematology. 2017;176:315–7.
    1. Wang Q, Wang Y, Ji Z, Chen X, Pan Y, Gao G. et al. Risk factors for multiple myeloma: a hospital-based case-control study in Northwest China. Cancer epidemiology. 2012;36:439–44.
    1. Shi H, Chen Z, Xie J, Chen N. The Prevalence and Management of Multiple Myeloma-Induced Kidney Disease in China. Kidney diseases. 2016;1:235–40.
    1. Waxman AJ, Mink PJ, Devesa SS, Anderson WF, Weiss BM, Kristinsson SY. et al. Racial disparities in incidence and outcome in multiple myeloma: a population-based study. Blood. 2010;116:5501–6.
    1. Smith CJ, Ambs S, Landgren O. Biological determinants of health disparities in multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8:85.
    1. Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Fedewa SA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Saslow D. et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:100–21.
    1. Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS, Sicks JD, Keeler EB, Aberle DR. et al. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1793–802.
    1. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, Shih YC. et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314:1599–614.
    1. Bird J, Behrens J, Westin J, Turesson I, Drayson M, Beetham R. et al. UK Myeloma Forum (UKMF) and Nordic Myeloma Study Group (NMSG): guidelines for the investigation of newly detected M-proteins and the management of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) Br J Haematol. 2009;147:22–42.
    1. Tripathy S. The role of serum protein electrophoresis in the detection of multiple myeloma: an experience of a corporate hospital. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2012;6:1458–61.
    1. Harding SJ, Mead GP, Bradwell AR, Berard AM. Serum free light chain immunoassay as an adjunct to serum protein electrophoresis and immunofixation electrophoresis in the detection of multiple myeloma and other B-cell malignancies. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. 2009;47:302–4.
    1. Henderson J. Health economics: screening test costs. Health and social service journal. 1982;92:246–7.
    1. Zhou X, Xia J, Mao J, Cheng F, Qian X, Guo H. Real-world outcome and healthcare costs of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A retrospective analysis from the Chinese experience. Hematology. 2016;21:280–6.
    1. Liu YH, Liu G, Ren X, Zhang H, Huang Y. Disease Burden of Multiple Myeloma in China. Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2014;17:A727.
    1. Concato J. What is a screening test? Misclassification bias in observational studies of screening for cancer. Journal of general internal medicine. 1997;12:607–12.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel