Clinical Characteristics and Prognostic Analysis of Multiple Myeloma with Extramedullary Disease: A SEER-Based Study

Background. Extramedullary disease (EMD), an infrequent manifestation of multiple myeloma (MM), can present at diagnosis or develop during the disease course. EMD can be clinically divided into bone-related EMD (EMD-B) and soft tissue-related EMD (EMD-S). The purpose of our study is to investigate t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Guang Li, Yan-Ping Song, Yao Lv, Zhen-Zhen Li, Yan-Hua Zheng
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2021-01-01
Series:Journal of Oncology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6681521
Description
Summary:Background. Extramedullary disease (EMD), an infrequent manifestation of multiple myeloma (MM), can present at diagnosis or develop during the disease course. EMD can be clinically divided into bone-related EMD (EMD-B) and soft tissue-related EMD (EMD-S). The purpose of our study is to investigate the clinical characteristics, survival outcomes, and prognostic factors of MM patients with EMD. Methods. A total of 155 MM patients with EMD were ultimately enrolled in our study by retrieving the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves and log-rank test for overall survival (OS) and myeloma-specific survival (MSS) were conducted to compare each potential variable. Variables with a p value <0.1 in the univariate Cox regression were incorporated into the multivariate Cox model to determine the independent prognostic factors, with a hazard ratio (HR) >1 representing adverse prognostic factors. Results. The median age at diagnosis was 63 years old. EMD-B occurred in 99 patients (63.90%), while EMD-S occurred in 56 cases (36.10%). Patients with EMD-S had a significant survival disadvantage in MSS (HR = 1.844, 95% CI 1.117–3.042, p = 0.017) and OS (HR = 1.853, 95% CI 1.166–2.942, p = 0.009) compared to those with EMD-B. Patients with EMD interval ≤24 months were at higher risk of death than those with EMD at diagnosis in MSS (HR = 1.885, 95% CI 1.175–3.346, p = 0.042) and in OS (HR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.119–2.529, p = 0.036). Patients with EMD interval >24 months were at a lower risk of death as opposed to those with EMD at diagnosis. Conclusion. Age at MM diagnosis, site of EMD, and time interval from diagnosis to EMD occurrence were independent prognostic factors in MM patients with EMD. EMD-B bore a better prognosis than EMD-S.
ISSN:1687-8450
1687-8469