4.3 Article

Multiple myeloma, race, insurance and treatment

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 73, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2021.101974

Keywords

Multiple myeloma; Induction therapy; Sociodemographic disparities; Patient outcome

Funding

  1. Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) [P30CA196521]
  2. Philanthropic Fund of the Myeloma Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found disparities and unplanned interruptions in the treatment of multiple myeloma patients, which were associated with age, race, ethnicity, and insurance type. Underuse and interruptions in treatment may affect patient survival rates, suggesting a need to address these issues.
Purpose: Multiple Myeloma (MM), the second leading blood malignancy, has complex and costly disease management. We studied patterns of treatment disparities and unplanned interruptions among the MM patients after the Affordable Care Act to assess their prevalence and effect on survival. Materials and methods: This retrospective study of 1002 MM patients at a tertiary referral center used standard guidelines as a reference to identify underuse of effective treatments. We used multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportionate hazard to study the prognostic effect on survival. Results: Median age in the cohort was 63.0 [IQR: 14] years. Non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients were older (p = 0.007) and more likely to present with stage I disease (p = 0.02). Underuse of maintenance therapy (aOR = 1.98; 95 % CI 1.12-3.48) and interruptions in treatment were associated with race/ethnicity and insurance (aOR = 4.14; 95 % CI: 1.78-9.74). Only underuse of induction therapy was associated with overall patient survival. Conclusion: Age, race, ethnicity and primary insurance contribute to the underuse of treatment and in unplanned interruptions in MM treatment. Addressing underuse causes in such patients is warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available