Search

Summary: Treatment advances have greatly improved survival, but myeloma is among the worst of all cancers for delayed diagnosis, causing serious morbidities and early deaths. This delay is largely because the symptom profile of myeloma has very low specificity, and in primary care, myeloma is rare. However, initiating the journey to diagnosis simply requires considering myeloma and sending blood to test for monoclonal immunoglobulin. Laboratory tests reliably detect monoclonal immunoglobulin, which is present in 99% of myeloma cases, so why do health care systems have such a problem with delayed diagnosis? The Myeloma UK early diagnosis programme has brought together diverse expertise to investigate this problem, and this article was prepared by the programme's working group for laboratory best practice. It reviews evidence for test requesting, analysis and reporting, for which there is large variation in practice across the United Kingdom. It presents a 'GP Myeloma diagnostic tool' and how it can be integrated into laboratory practice alongside a laboratory best practice tool. It proposes improved requesting and integration with haematology services for reporting and interpretation. Here the laboratory has a central role in creating efficient and cost‐effective pathways for appropriate and timely bone marrow examination for myeloma diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This Good Practice Paper provides recommendations for the diagnosis, risk stratification and management of the monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). It describes the recently recognised entity of the monoclonal gammopathy of clinical significance (MGCS), and recommends how it should be managed. The potential for targeted population screening for MGUS is also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Management of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) has recently undergone dramatic changes, prompting the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) to issue recommendations in 2013; however, it remains unclear whether real‐world CML management is consistent with these goals. We report results of UK TARGET CML, a retrospective observational study of 257 patients with chronic‐phase CML who had been prescribed a first‐line TKI between 2013 and 2017, most of whom received first‐line imatinib (n = 203). Although 44% of patients required ≥1 change of TKI, these real‐world data revealed that molecular assessments were frequently missed, 23% of patients with ELN‐defined treatment failure did not switch TKI, and kinase domain mutation analysis was performed in only 49% of patients who switched TKI for resistance. Major molecular response (MMR; BCR‐ABL1IS ≤0·1%) and deep molecular response (DMR; BCR‐ABL1IS ≤0·01%) were observed in 50% and 29%, respectively, of patients treated with first‐line imatinib, and 63% and 54%, respectively, receiving a second‐generation TKI first line. MMR and DMR were also observed in 77% and 44% of evaluable patients with ≥13 months follow‐up, receiving a second‐generation TKI second line. We found little evidence that cardiovascular risk factors were considered during TKI management. These findings highlight key areas for improvement in providing optimal care to patients with CML. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]