Search

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., (© 2024 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Patients with myeloma often face significant diagnostic delay, with up to one-third of UK patients diagnosed after an emergency presentation (EP). Compared with other routes, patients presenting as an emergency have more advanced disease, increased complications, and poorer prognosis., Methods: An economic model was developed using a decision-tree framework and lifetime time horizon to estimate costs related to different presentation routes (EP, general practitioner [GP] 2-week wait, GP urgent, GP routine, and consultant to consultant) for UK patients diagnosed as having myeloma. After diagnosis, patients received one of 3 first-line management options (observation, active treatment, or end-of-life care). Inputs were derived from UK health technology assessments and targeted literature reviews, or based on authors' clinical experience where data were unavailable. Active treatment, complication, and end-of-life care costs were included., Results: The average per-patient cost of treating myeloma (across all routes) was estimated at £146 261. The average per-patient cost associated with EP (£152 677) was the highest; differences were minimal compared with GP 2-week wait (£149 631) and consultant to consultant (£147 237). GP urgent (£140 025) and GP routine (£130 212) were associated with marginally lower costs. Complication (£42 252) and end-of-life care (£11 273) costs were numerically higher for EP than other routes (£25 021-£38 170 and £9772-£10 458, respectively)., Conclusions: An economic benefit may be associated with earlier diagnosis, gained via reduced complication and end-of-life care costs. Strategies to expedite myeloma diagnosis and minimize EPs have the potential to improve patient outcomes and may result in long-term savings that could offset any upfront costs associated with their implementation., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Multiple myeloma is a haematological cancer caused by malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow that can result in organ dysfunction and death. Recent novel treatments have contributed to improved survival rates, including monoclonal antibody therapies that target the CD38 protein on the surface of plasma cells. Anti-CD38 therapies are IgG kappa monoclonal antibodies that are given in doses high enough for the drug to be visible on serum protein electrophoresis as a small paraprotein. We present a case where isatuximab, the most recent anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody to be approved for treatment of myeloma, obscured the patient's paraprotein on gel immunofixation, so that complete remission could not be demonstrated. This was resolved using the isatuximab Hydrashift assay. The interference on gel immunofixation was unexpected because isatuximab migrated in a position distinct from the patient's paraprotein on capillary zone electrophoresis. We demonstrate the surprising finding that isatuximab migrates in a different position on gel electrophoresis compared to capillary zone electrophoresis. It is vital that laboratories are aware of the possible interference on electrophoresis from anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapies, and are able to recognise these drugs on protein electrophoresis. The difference in isatuximab's electrophoretic mobility on capillary and gel protein electrophoresis makes this particularly challenging. Laboratories should have a strategy for alternative analyses in the event that the drugs interfere with assessment of the patient's paraprotein.

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma will involve not only development of new therapies but also better use of existing treatments. We performed RNA sequencing on samples from newly diagnosed patients enrolled in the phase 2 PADIMAC (Bortezomib, Adriamycin, and Dexamethasone Therapy for Previously Untreated Patients with Multiple Myeloma: Impact of Minimal Residual Disease in Patients with Deferred ASCT) study. Using synthetic annealing and the large margin nearest neighbor algorithm, we developed and trained a 7-gene signature to predict treatment outcome. We tested the signature in independent cohorts treated with bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based therapies. The signature was capable of distinguishing which patients would respond better to which regimen. In the CoMMpass data set, patients who were treated correctly according to the signature had a better progression-free survival (median, 20.1 months vs not reached; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.72; P = .0012) and overall survival (median, 30.7 months vs not reached; HR, 0.41; CI, 0.21-0.80; P = .0049) than those who were not. Indeed, the outcome for these correctly treated patients was noninferior to that for those treated with combined bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, arguably the standard of care in the United States but not widely available elsewhere. The small size of the signature will facilitate clinical translation, thus enabling more targeted drug regimens to be delivered in myeloma., (© 2018 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Myeloma is one of the most common malignancies that results in osteolytic lesions of the spine. Complications, including pathological fractures of the vertebrae and spinal cord compression, may cause severe pain, deformity and neurological sequelae. They may also have significant consequences for quality of life and prognosis for patients. For patients with known or newly diagnosed myeloma presenting with persistent back or radicular pain/weakness, early diagnosis of spinal myeloma disease is therefore essential to treat and prevent further deterioration. Magnetic resonance imaging is the initial imaging modality of choice for the evaluation of spinal disease. Treatment of the underlying malignancy with systemic chemotherapy together with supportive bisphosphonate treatment reduces further vertebral damage. Additional interventions such as cement augmentation, radiotherapy, or surgery are often necessary to prevent, treat and control spinal complications. However, optimal management is dependent on the individual nature of the spinal involvement and requires careful assessment and appropriate intervention throughout. This article reviews the treatment and management options for spinal myeloma disease and highlights the value of defined pathways to enable the proper management of patients affected by it., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)