Suchergebnisse

Survival in multiple myeloma (MM) has developed favorably over the past decades for reasons that have been ascribed to new medications and treatment. However, development of survival over a long period and comparison to other hematopoietic neoplasms (HN) is less well known. Here we used Swedish cancer data from the Nordcan database, spanning a 50-year period from 1967 to 2016, and analyzed 1- and 5-year survival data. As a novel type of analysis we calculate the difference in survival between year 1 and 5 which indicates how well survival was maintained in the 4-year period following year 1 after diagnosis. The relative 1- and 5- year survival increased constantly; the 5-year survival graph for women was almost linear. The difference between 1- and 5-year survival revealed that the 5-year survival gain was entirely due to the improvement in 1-year survival, except for the last period. Survival improvement in all HNs exceeded that in MM. The linear 5-year survival increase for female MM patients suggests a contribution by many small improvements in the first year care rather than single major events. The future challenges are to push the gains past year 1 and to extend them to old patients. ; Supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, Grant No. 856620 (Chaperon) and by the German Jose Carreras Leukemia Foundation.

Background We wanted to evaluate if health care for multiple myeloma (MM) patients is equal in different regions of Sweden. Aim To study differences in survival for MM depending on health care region and early use of modern treatment. Methods and results Data from the Swedish Myeloma Register from patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2017 was used. Cohorts were defined by the six healthcare regions (labeled A-F) in Sweden and modern initial treatment was defined as including certain drug combinations. To adjust for time to treatment bias, survival analyses were performed also for patients alive 6 months after diagnosis. In all treated MM patients (n = 5326), we observed a superior overall survival (OS) for region A compared to all other regions (p < .01 for all respectively). After adjusting for time to treatment there was also a superior survival in the region with highest use of modern initial treatment (region A) compared to the regions defined in the study as having intermediate and low use (p < .01 for both). In patients receiving autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) a superior survival was observed for region A compared to all regions besides region B. Similar results were seen when adjusting for a time to treatment bias. In patients not receiving ASCT, 75 years or older and adjusted for time to treatment bias, a difference was noted only between region A and E (log rank p = .04, HR 1.2, CI 1.00-1.44, p = .06). In multivariate analyses including age, international staging system stage and time period of diagnosis, differences in survival remained for patients receiving ASCT between region A versus C, D, E and F (p = .01, p < .01, p < .01, p = .03). Conclusion We observed a superior survival in region A for patients receiving ASCT. Explanations may be higher usage of modern initial treatment or regional residual confounding. For patients not receiving ASCT, 75 years or older, differences in survival could be adjusted for. ; Funding Agencies|CancerfondenSwedish Cancer Society