> Details

Wålinder, Göran; Genell, Anna; Juliusson, Gunnar; Svensson, Ronald; Santamaria, Antonio Izarra; Crafoord, Jacob; Carlson, Kristina; Knut‐Bojanowska, Dorota; Veskovski, Ljupco; Lauri, Birgitta; Lund, Johan; Turesson, Ingemar; Hansson, Markus; Blimark, Cecilie Hveding; Nahi, Hareth

Regional differences in treatment and outcome for myeloma patients in Sweden: A population based Swedish myeloma register study

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Regional differences in treatment and outcome for myeloma patients in Sweden: A population based Swedish myeloma register study
  • Contributor: Wålinder, Göran; Genell, Anna; Juliusson, Gunnar; Svensson, Ronald; Santamaria, Antonio Izarra; Crafoord, Jacob; Carlson, Kristina; Knut‐Bojanowska, Dorota; Veskovski, Ljupco; Lauri, Birgitta; Lund, Johan; Turesson, Ingemar; Hansson, Markus; Blimark, Cecilie Hveding; Nahi, Hareth
  • imprint: Wiley, 2022
  • Published in: Cancer Reports
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.1614
  • ISSN: 2573-8348
  • Keywords: Cancer Research ; Oncology
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>We wanted to evaluate if health care for multiple myeloma (MM) patients is equal in different regions of Sweden.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Aim</jats:title><jats:p>To study differences in survival for MM depending on health care region and early use of modern treatment.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods and results</jats:title><jats:p>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 (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 5326), we observed a superior overall survival (OS) for region A compared to all other regions (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; .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 (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; .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 <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .04, HR 1.2, CI 1.00–1.44, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .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 (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .01, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; .01, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; .01, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .03).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec>
  • Access State: Open Access