Development of an Initial Conceptual Model of Multiple Myeloma to Support Clinical and Health Economics Decision Making.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a common hematological malignancy, accounting for up to 10% of hematological cancers and 1% of all cancers. 1 , 2 It is characterized by aberrant clonal expansion of plasma cells within the bone marrow and the secretion of large amounts of immunoglobulin, known as M protein. 3 Increased use of new agents for the treatment of patients with MM has improved survival. For example, in Germany, age-adjusted 5-year survival for those with newly diagnosed MM increased from 47.3% between 2004 and 2008 to 53.8% between 2008 and 2012. 4 In the United Kingdom, 1-, 5-, and 10-year age-adjusted survival of patients with MM diagnosed between 2010 and 2011 was 76.6%, 47%, and 32.5%, respectively. 5 Inevitably, all patients with MM will experience relapses and many will undergo multiple lines of treatment. 6 Because of the heterogeneity of the disease, treatment responses vary and are often affected by treatment-related toxicity or complications arising from the natural progression of the disease. 1 , 7 Indeed, a study of the clinical course of patients with MM reported that the duration of response decreased consistently with each line of therapy, and that 84% of patients died within 5 years of first relapse. 8 MM may also become refractory to treatment. 9

Treatment has evolved considerably from the previous standards of care using alkylating agents plus steroids, and now includes novel targeted agents and high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation (SCT) for patients aged ≤70 years. 10 Relapse rates are high and most patients will receive a new anti-MM agent, several of which are now approved in Europe, including the proteasome inhibitors bortezomib, 11 carfilzomib, 12 and ixazomib 13 ; immunomodulatory drugs such as thalidomide, 14 lenalidomide, 15 and pomalidomide 16 ; the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab 17 and elotuzumab 18 ; and the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat. 19

Choice of therapy is influenced by, among other things, approval status, availability of, and reimbursement guidelines for MM drugs, and also patient preference and suitability for treatment. Disease- and patient-related factors, and response to previous therapies, are particularly important for those with relapsed or refractory disease because there is no generally accepted standard of care for these patients. 10 Heterogeneity among patients with MM means that treatment responses may vary; however, there is a lack of information on the specific patient populations that will respond to certain treatment regimens. Furthermore, patients with MM often have comorbidities such as renal impairment or peripheral neuropathy, which should be considered when deciding on treatment. 10 A better understanding of how these individual factors and their interrelationships influence the progression of MM and patient outcomes would aid the assessment of new interventions. These concepts can be assimilated into a model that may help improve our knowledge of different aspects of the MM disease process from clinical and economic viewpoints.

A conceptual model is a simplified representation of reality that informs medical decisions and perceptions of prognosis, which can provide the basis for health economic modeling. 20 The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Task Force recommend that a conceptual model is developed before constructing an economic model, to ensure that all key components and endpoints have been identified. 20 – 23 Evidence on clinical and economic outcomes is structured to help decision makers evaluate health care interventions. Therefore, a conceptual model of MM could be used to predict long-term outcomes for those with the disease. Conceptual models in other disease areas (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) have been reported, 23 and Baz et al. developed a conceptual model looking at how MM and its treatment affect health-related quality of life. 21 However, there is no comprehensive conceptual model that could bridge the gap between the factors involved in the disease process in MM, its progression, and subsequent effects on patient outcomes.

Our objective was to develop and validate a conceptual model of MM that can provide clinicians with a comprehensive framework of patient characteristics, leading to a better understanding of the attributes that influence disease progression and, ultimately, patient outcomes. We also aimed to define the interrelationships and potentially causal relationships among attributes. This conceptual model may improve understanding of the attributes that influence disease progression and consequently affect health economics decision making and patient management. For example, resource allocation may be determined based on this model, and the model may also be used as a basis for the development of economic models.

Disease- and patient-specific attributes that affect disease progression and outcomes were identified from published literature and were validated, together with their interrelationships, via a Delphi panel of experts in hemato-oncology. The physician-validated model was explored further using real-world data obtained from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) to ensure that only relevant attributes were included. The Czech RMG is one of the largest hematological registries in Europe; it collects data from patients with hematological malignancies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 24 Registry data provide valuable insights into treatment outcomes for patients in clinical practice, capturing a broader range of patients than in clinical trials. This model has the potential to be expanded to examine how the relationships between attributes change over time and with therapeutic intervention.

Methods

Literature Review

The first step of the modeling process involved conceptualization of the problem and the model, 25 addressed through literature reviews and a Delphi panel, respectively. Systematic literature reviews identified studies relating to the disease burden of MM, economic models of MM, and clinical trials of MM treatments. The objective of the literature review, which took place over a 3-month period, was to identify all of the factors potentially related to the disease process in MM. These included patient characteristics, genetic factors, disease characteristics, and complications, together with various disease-related and patient-related outcome measures. A key aspect of this process was to capture the relationships between the different factors, because this information would be used to develop the conceptual model of MM. Search terms for the literature databases were therefore selected to focus on conceptual or disease models, and associations, correlations, or relationships between factors in MM.

Searches included the Embase and Medline (including PubMed) databases (2004–2014), annual meeting proceedings from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and American Society of Hematology (ASH) (2012–2014), health technology assessment (HTA) reports (2004–2014), and treatment guidelines for patients with MM (2009–2014). Databases searched and search terms used are presented in Online Appendix 1 ( Tables S1–S6 ). The results of these searches formed the basis for model development, in line with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 25

Following removal of duplicates, titles and abstracts were screened and final inclusion of articles was based on review of the full text. The criteria for inclusion are summarized in Online Appendix 1 ( Table S7 ). A data-extraction Microsoft Excel file was developed to organize the publications, and extracted data are listed in Online Appendix 1 ( Table S8 ). The focus of this research was on non–treatment-specific attributes; therefore, adverse events were not included. Publications of guidelines and HTA reports that were not written in English would have been permitted if an English language version was available, but this was not necessary because none was identified.

Development of the Conceptual Model

Components of the conceptual model were defined as follows.

Attribute: A metric considered to be a characteristic or inherent part of the MM disease process. Attributes could be explanatory or dependent. A change in an explanatory attribute was considered to have a direct effect on a dependent attribute and its value (e.g., increases in age [explanatory attribute] were associated with an increased risk of death [dependent attribute]).

Attribute category: A group of related attributes representing a particular patient characteristic or disease process.

Outcome: A patient-related outcome that differs from a disease outcome, such as quality of life (QoL), that is directly or indirectly affected by other attributes.

Disease progression: A disease outcome representing worsening disease that is directly or indirectly affected by other attributes.

Interrelationship: Individual attributes or attribute categories that influence each other, directly or indirectly.

Causal relationship: Individual attributes or attribute categories that have a direct effect on another attribute.

Key attributes used to measure and to define MM, and information on how these attributes can influence, or be influenced by, disease progression and patient outcomes in MM, were identified from the literature reviews. The attributes and outcomes were grouped according to their interrelationships, and the groups were linked according to the relationships that each might have with the others. The groups were subsequently organized into broad categories, such as disease characteristics, patient characteristics, and key outcomes.

Delphi Panel

The initial draft of the conceptual model was assessed and validated in a stepwise manner using the Delphi method. This is a widely used and accepted group communication process that aims to achieve a convergence of opinion on a specific real-world issue. 26 The Delphi panel comprised four practicing hematologists recognized as international experts in MM. The aims of the Delphi panel were primarily to identify and to qualify the most relevant disease attributes identified from the literature reviews that affect disease progression and patient outcomes, and subsequently to explore the potentially causal relationships between the attributes. Treatment effects were not explored.

One-to-one interviews were conducted with each Delphi panel member. Panel members prepared for the interview by reviewing the interview guide, which was also used during the interview ( Online Appendix 2 ). The conceptual model was then revised to reflect the opinions of the experts and reviewed by the panel via a written assignment. Another round of interviews was conducted, during which consensus was sought for each attribute and association that had been incorporated into the model. Through this process the physician-validated conceptual model was constructed.

Quantifying the Conceptual Model Using Real-World Data

A separate validation step was performed after completion of the literature review and Delphi panel process, using registry data not used in the development of the conceptual model. The attributes, outcomes, and relationships confirmed by the physicians were quantified using real-world data obtained from the RMG. 24 If available, data on attributes and outcomes identified by the Delphi panel were obtained from Czech adults (≥18 years old) enrolled in the RMG who had been diagnosed with symptomatic MM between May 2007 and April 2016. 27 If attribute data were not available, proxies were used where possible (e.g., the presence of two or more osteolytic lesions and a bone-related extramedullary mass were used as proxies for pain). Pairwise analyses were performed on the identified attributes at diagnosis and by treatment line to identify correlations between attributes. Pearson’s R correlation coefficients were calculated and statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

An analysis of predictors of overall survival (OS) from the initiation of first-line treatment was performed to confirm the physician-validated attributes in the conceptual model for which data were also available in the RMG and to identify potential new variables that predicted OS. 28 Attributes considered predictive of OS were fitted to a multiple Cox regression model and backward selection was performed using Akaike’s information criterion. 28 Proxies were not used for unavailable attributes in the Cox model, and assessment of confounding was limited to variables associated with OS.

Results

Literature Reviews

The ProQuest search of PubMed and Embase databases and ASH congress proceedings identified 1,988 relevant papers; another 279 abstracts were identified from the search of ASCO congress proceedings. In addition, 155 HTA reports and 94 guidelines were identified. Following removal of duplicates, 2,483 records were screened and 2,122 discarded, leaving 361 to be screened for eligibility by assessment of the full text (if available). In total, 131 records (89 articles [36 papers and 53 abstracts], 30 HTA reports, and 12 guidelines) met the inclusion criteria ( Figure 1 ). The records included case–control studies, chart reviews, cohort studies, retrospective studies, database analyses, clinical trials, patient surveys, reviews, and original research from the European Union, the United States, Canada, Asia, Egypt, and Brazil. Most studies included patients with newly diagnosed MM.

Of the 97 MM attributes that were identified from the literature reviews, 56 significant attributes were selected, that is, those that had a significant relationship with another attribute. These were grouped into five attribute categories: disease characteristics, cytogenetics, patient characteristics, QoL, and symptoms. Figure 2 shows the significant attributes identified in each category.

Following the first Delphi panel round, categorization identified 26 explanatory variables and 20 dependent variables ( Figure 3 ). The most commonly reported explanatory variables included age, International Staging System (ISS) stage, and levels of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), immunoglobulin light chains, β 2 microglobulin, albumin, and serum and urine M protein. The most commonly reported dependent variable was OS, followed by QoL. None of the studies reviewed presented a comprehensive set of determinants of disease progression and outcomes, and no conceptual models linking factors involved in the disease process, its progression, and/or patient outcomes were identified.

Development of the Initial Conceptual Model Using Physician-Driven Attributes

The Delphi panel considered the patient and disease characteristics that might influence the MM disease process identified through the literature reviews. There was consensus that the categories defined in the model, and the attributes assigned to each group, were correct. However, agreement was not reached on the interrelationships between some attributes within groups, or attribute categories as a whole. This reflects the heterogeneous nature of the disease and limited evidence on the associations between such attributes and their effect on the disease process.

All 97 attributes identified were considered by the panel in the first round of interviews, to ensure that potentially important variables that may have been of interest to the experts were not excluded prospectively. The first-round interviews identified OS and QoL as important outcomes; physical activity, psychological fitness, and comorbidities were important aspects of QoL. Although complete agreement was not reached on which parameters belonged in the patient/disease characteristics group, the panel members agreed that patient and disease characteristics should not be separated, and that cytogenetic factors could be grouped together. Most panel members considered important patient/disease characteristics to be age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, ISS stage, extramedullary disease status, serum free light-chain ratio, and levels of serum calcium, serum LDH, immunoglobulin subtypes (G, A, D, kappa/lambda light chain), and bone marrow plasma cells. Hypoploidy, karyotype abnormalities, t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p), 1p, and 1q abnormalities were considered by most panel members to be important cytogenetic factors. The experts agreed that symptoms cannot be separated from complications, because most of the symptoms of MM are caused by complications. The experts also agreed that anemia, breathlessness and paleness, bone lesions and/or fractures, bleeding, infections, kidney damage, neuropathy, and pain are important symptoms or complications. Disease progression should be measured with a set of indicators, including CRAB criteria (hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency, anemia, and lytic bone lesions or osteoporosis), M protein level, serum light chain level, and extramedullary disease (mass) detected by imaging. Although M protein is a signal of tumor load in most patients, it is not a good measure for those with non-secretory disease.

Consensus was not reached for many of the associations and required further consideration; this was achieved through a written assignment. Table 1 shows the frequency and direction of associations agreed by at least 50% of the Delphi panel. It was agreed that “tumor activity/growth” could be used as a composite measure of disease progression. Consensus was reached on positive associations between extramedullary disease and disease progression and tumor activity/growth, and between serum LDH and tumor activity/growth, and on negative associations between kidney damage and OS, and for pain and ambulation and mobility. Of the 50 associations between attributes identified, agreement was reached by three of the four experts in 38% of cases (19 associations) and by two of the experts in 52% of cases (26 associations).

In the second round of interviews, all Delphi panel members agreed with the general structure of the conceptual model and the key attributes included. Patient characteristics were divided into cytogenetic factors, age, and renal comorbidities/ECOG performance status. Other areas of consensus/agreement reached by the panel during this step are summarized in Figure 4 .

Consensus was not reached on the direct effect of cytogenetic factors on the disease process; in particular, t(4; 14) and del(17p) were considered to be important prognostic indicators but there was no consensus on their impact on disease activity. Cytogenetic factors may also influence complications, but consensus was not reached on this, and the suggestion was based on del(17p) only. Thus, del(17p) was added as a separate sub-box and linked to complications and disease activity. Age and comorbidities are heavily interlinked but have been separated in the model because the panelists did not agree about the relationship between age and complications and symptoms: some experts suggested a direct relationship, whereas others suggested an indirect relationship via comorbidities. In the physician-validated model, no consensus was reached on the relationship between age and symptoms and complications; consensus was reached on the impact of ECOG performance status and renal comorbidities on complications and symptoms ( Figure 5 ).

Age was important in the model, but there was disagreement about its interrelationships with other attributes. Consensus was reached that age has an indirect effect on other attributes, because elderly patients are generally unable to tolerate intensive treatment. Three of the panelists commented that elderly patients are likely to have shorter survival than younger patients because they have more comorbidities; two experts agreed that comorbidities have a direct effect on complications and symptoms. Agreement was reached on the association between age and QoL. The expert who did not agree that age affected QoL commented that elderly patients were more likely to have comorbidities than younger patients, which would reduce QoL.

The disease process was separated into disease activity, and complications and symptoms. There was consensus for the factors included in each of these groups and the relationships between them: disease activity affected complications and symptoms; complications affected symptoms. Consensus was also reached that disease activity, comorbidities, and complications affect OS, and that age, comorbidities, and complications and symptoms affect QoL. The physician-validated conceptual model is shown in Figure 5 .

Exploratory Analyses to Quantify the Conceptual Model for Economic Modeling Using Real-World Data From the Czech RMG

Exploratory analyses used data from adults enrolled in the Czech RMG who had been diagnosed with symptomatic MM between May 2007 and April 2016; 3,027 patients with newly diagnosed MM were included in the analysis. Median OS from diagnosis was 49.9 months (95% confidence interval = 46.2–53.7) and median follow-up (estimated using the one-minus-survival curve for a slightly smaller sample) was approximately 50 months.

Pairwise correlation analysis was performed on MM attributes at diagnosis to identify which attributes were correlated with each other ( Table 2 ). Strong positive correlations were identified between pain and ECOG performance status, extramedullary disease and bone lesions, and between bone lesions and fatigue (all P < 0.001). Negative correlations were identified between several factors, including between anemia and fatigue ( P < 0.001), which is not surprising because increased hemoglobin reduces fatigue. This negative correlation was observed in all treatment lines, although this may be because the available data on fatigue were reported as a toxicity rather than as a symptom. In general, the correlations identified were in agreement with the outcomes of the Delphi panel but with some exceptions. The panel noted positive correlations between anemia and infection, and between age and anemia, whereas statistically significant negative correlations between these attributes were identified using the RMG data. The Delphi panel also agreed that age was positively associated with anemia and infection, whereas these associations were not found to be statistically significant in the correlation analysis (data not shown). Not all of the attributes and their relationships identified by the Delphi panel could be quantified because of insufficient data in the RMG.

In the first and second treatment lines, significant positive correlations were identified between age and ECOG performance status, and between β 2 microglobulin level and fatigue. Bone lesions and pain were also significantly positively correlated with each other ( Online Appendix 1 ; Table S9 ). The strength of the correlations tended to change with successive relapses. For example, the strengths of the positive correlations between β 2 microglobulin level and fatigue, and between renal complications and fatigue, decreased from the first to the fourth treatment line (data not shown). The variation in correlation strength probably reflects variation in patient characteristics across lines: patients who survive and receive a subsequent line of treatment are likely to have different attributes from those who died or did not (yet) progress to the next treatment line.

Multiple Cox regression analysis using data from the RMG confirmed several significant predictors of OS in our conceptual model, including age and ECOG performance status. Disease factors such as extramedullary disease, ISS stage, revised ISS (R-ISS) stage at diagnosis, thrombocyte count, and levels of creatinine were also confirmed to affect OS significantly ( Table 3 ). 28 Levels of serum LDH also significantly affected OS, and even though consensus was not reached by the Delphi panel, this was included in the model because of its relevance as part of the R-ISS. Calcium level, bone lesions, and bone marrow plasma count were not independent predictors of OS; however, these attributes were significantly positively correlated with other attributes in the univariate analysis ( Table 2 ), meaning that they may indirectly influence OS. Thus, these attributes were deemed to be important features of the model (supported by evidence from the literature searches and Delphi panel) and were included in the final conceptual model ( Figure 6 ). QoL data were lacking in the RMG; so although many attributes were considered to affect QoL, these associations could not be quantified ( Figure 6 ). Similarly, several attributes, including hypodiploidy, karyotypic abnormalities, renal comorbidities, symptoms, and plasma cell labeling index, could not be validated statistically but were all deemed by the Delphi panel to affect the disease process and patient outcomes and were therefore included in the final conceptual model ( Figure 6 ).

Discussion

In line with the recommendations of the ISPOR–SMDM Task Force, 20 , 22 the conceptual model described here was developed for use in clinical decision making and health economic modeling. This is the first conceptual model of MM to incorporate the relevance of disease and patient attributes to disease progression and patient outcomes.

A deep understanding of the current evidence base for MM was gained by systematic and targeted literature reviews. The draft conceptual model was based on variables identified from the literature reviews and was refined using the Delphi method. A conceptual model for use in clinical decision making and economic modeling requires evidence of its relevance to the disease setting in clinical practice. However, the lack of consensus on the associations between some attributes and outcomes shows that current understanding of how aspects of MM affect disease progression and patient outcomes differs among clinicians, and is based on experience rather than evidence. This is also reflected in the limited data from randomized clinical trials on how certain attributes affect the disease process and patient outcomes. As a result, potential causal relationships in our conceptual model were identified through the insight and experience of the MM experts. Statistical analyses of real-world data from the Czech RMG corroborated many of these associations.

The Delphi panel deemed disease activity to be central to the conceptual model, affecting complications, symptoms, OS, and QoL. The panel agreed that age influenced ECOG performance status and QoL, and the correlation between age and ECOG performance status was confirmed using data from the RMG; the correlation between age and QoL could not be confirmed because there were no relevant data in the RMG. The Delphi panel agreed that age may influence OS indirectly, particularly via comorbidities: older patients are more likely than younger patients to have comorbidities, 29 and a study of patients older than 65 years with newly diagnosed MM found that higher Charlson Comorbidity Indices were associated with significantly shorter OS. 30 A retrospective European patient chart review showed that patients with comorbidities (including anemia, low serum albumin, and neutropenia) and adverse events were significantly less likely to continue treatment than those without such comorbidities ( P < 0.05). 31

In line with the Delphi panel, the analysis of clinical practice data from the Czech RMG confirmed age as a predictor of OS. In another study, age directly affected OS independently of comorbidities: survival is significantly shorter in older than in younger patients with comorbidities. 32 As patients age, they become increasingly frail and OS is worse than in fit patients. 33 The influence of age on OS may also be due to differences in the management of older and younger patients with MM: high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous SCT is the standard of care for younger patients, whereas those older than 65 years are likely to receive chemotherapy or targeted agents. 34 , 35 Data from a retrospective chart review across seven European countries found that patients older than 65 years were less likely than younger patients to receive autologous SCT (21% v. 79%). 6 Two randomized clinical trials have shown that high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous SCT is associated with an improved response rate, event-free survival, and OS compared with conventional chemotherapy. 36 , 37 In addition, the shorter OS in older patients may be due to discontinuation of treatment. Another retrospective European chart review of patients with MM found that individuals older than 75 years were significantly less likely than younger patients to continue treatment ( P < 0.0001). 31

There was some disagreement among the Delphi panel about the influence of age on symptoms and complications. Only two of the experts agreed that age might influence certain complications, such as neuropathy, but not others. This is in line with published data in which the link between age and neuropathy is unclear. 38 – 40 Pairwise comparisons of clinical data in our study identified correlations between age and symptoms only in patients receiving third- or fourth-line treatment. Furthermore, age was found to be negatively associated with neuropathy only in the third treatment line, and not in any other line.

Our panel also found that complications and symptoms influenced QoL, although insufficient data were available for these relationships to be validated statistically. A conceptual model developed by others focusing solely on the impact of MM and its treatment on QoL found that the burden of MM symptoms and treatment negatively affected QoL. 21 However, their QoL conceptual model differs from the model developed here, which is the first to conceptualize the MM disease process for use as a predictive tool in the economic evaluation of health care interventions.

MM is a heterogeneous disease and practice patterns vary, which may affect patient outcomes. Data from a European patient chart review found that patients who were healthier at baseline were more likely to have received autologous SCT than those in poor health or with a high ECOG performance status score. 6 Furthermore, differences between guidelines in the diagnostic criteria and the influence of cytogenetic factors on prognosis, for example, may also result in varied approaches to the management of patients with MM. The International Myeloma Working Group consensus for the treatment of patients with high-risk cytogenetics recommends different treatment strategies according to the specific cytogenetic abnormalities. 41 Guidelines may make recommendations based on data from retrospective cohort studies or non-controlled trials in some instances. 34 , 35 , 42 , 43 Therefore, consensus opinions based on clinical experience, such as those defined here, may be valuable to clinicians when developing guideline recommendations and making treatment decisions. We validated and refined the model using clinical data; therefore, our conceptual model may be used for clinical decision making and health economic modeling.

This study has some limitations. Consensus reached during the Delphi method represents the opinion of the participants and may not necessarily represent the opinions of clinicians in general. Additionally, our panel was small, and members were all practicing in Europe and therefore provided their input based on clinical practice in this region only. “Agreement” was defined as at least 50% of the panel members sharing the same opinion. By definition, this meant that the other two members may not have shared this opinion (although the other two members must have had different opinions from each other). Attributes and associations for which only 50% of panel members agreed may be weaker than those for which more members agreed. Another limitation is that, for congress abstracts identified, data from related posters or oral presentations were not obtained, meaning that some relevant information may not have been included. Clinical data were not always available because MM is a rare disease, so some parameters included in the model could not be validated statistically. For some attributes, proxy measures were used. For example, the presence of two or more osteolytic lesions or a bone-related extramedullary mass were used as proxies for pain, and numbness and tingling were used as indicators for neuropathy. Toxicity was used as a proxy for infection and fatigue; however, other factors could cause these symptoms. Data entered into registries may not be complete, and the approach to recording information may vary among physicians. Data on cytogenetic risk are limited: these data are missing for many patients in the RMG and data on comorbidities were not available. Nonetheless, most of the parameters that were included did have corresponding real-world data and the interrelationships between attributes and groups could be verified. In addition, the cutoff for determining high LDH levels may differ among laboratories, which could introduce variability (random error) in the analysis.

The predictors of OS were validated only with respect to their direct influence on OS; multivariate analyses to investigate how other attributes influence each other (e.g., how cytogenetic factors affect M protein) were not conducted. Furthermore, the lack of QoL data in the Czech RMG meant that it was not possible to validate the many attributes in the model considered to affect QoL. In addition, the conceptual model figure indicates that more variables are associated with OS than are available in the RMG data. We were therefore unable to test whether these variables confound the associations in the multivariable Cox models, which means that the associations in the Cox models are prone to residual confounding bias. The multivariable analyses should therefore be regarded as exploratory. MM is a complicated and progressive disease and the model does not consider how disease activity leading to complications could affect OS; therefore, there is scope for future refinement. Although our model considers only the disease process and patient outcomes, treatment could also be incorporated. Treatment would be expected to have a direct effect on disease activity and an indirect effect on complications and symptoms. The model could be further refined by including healthcare resource utilization (HRU) during management of MM. Additionally, treatment-related adverse events could also be considered, and may have effects on HRU, QoL, and OS. Including treatment effect in the model could allow the impact of sequential treatments on the disease process to be assessed. Further research is required to explore this. Real-world data, such as those from patient chart studies and disease registries, provide valuable information on treatment patterns and patient outcomes, 6 , 24 , 27 , 31 and can be used to quantify the impact of therapeutic interventions on attributes and their interactions within the model. These data also provide the potential to examine the effects on outcomes of changes in patient characteristics over time. Additionally, there is a need for further research on how the interrelationships between attributes change over time.

Conclusions

This is the first conceptual model of MM to provide a systematic representation of the interrelationship between patient characteristics and disease processes on key outcomes. This model has been validated using a Delphi panel of experts and real-world evidence and is therefore appropriate for use in clinical decision making and in economic modeling. Furthermore, it provides a framework to guide further research on the impact of treatment on patient outcomes over time. This will allow researchers to quantify and to qualify the effect that disease attributes have on aspects of the disease process and will help predict disease progression and patient outcomes, furthering our understanding of the underlying disease process in MM and how specific therapeutic interventions can benefit patients.

Supplemental Material

DS_10.1177_2381468318814253 – Supplemental material for Development of an Initial Conceptual Model of Multiple Myeloma to Support Clinical and Health Economics Decision Making

Click here for additional data file.

Supplemental material, DS_10.1177_2381468318814253 for Development of an Initial Conceptual Model of Multiple Myeloma to Support Clinical and Health Economics Decision Making by Sebastian Gonzalez-McQuire, Meletios-Athanassios Dimopoulos, Katja Weisel, Walter Bouwmeester, Roman Hájek, Marco Campioni, Craig Bennison, Weiwei Xu, Krystallia Pantiri, Marja Hensen, Evangelos Terpos and Stefan Knop in MDM Policy & Practice

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by Amgen (Europe) GmbH. The authors would like to thank Pati Biedermann for her contributions to the statistical analyses and the Czech Myeloma Group for sharing their data and performing statistical analyses. Medical writing support was provided by Liz Hartfield, PhD, of Oxford PharmaGenesis, funding for which was provided by Amgen (Europe) GmbH. Editorial support was provided by Emma Booth of Amgen (Europe) GmbH. The members of the Delphi expert panel were as follows: Meletios-Athanassios Dimopoulos, MD, Roman Hájek, MD, PhD, Stefan Knop, MD, and Katja Weisel, MD.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: S. Gonzalez-McQuire and M. Campioni are employees of Amgen (Europe) GmbH and hold stock. K. Weisel has received consultancy fees and honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Onyx, and Takeda. M.A. Dimopoulos has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda. S. Knop has received honoraria from Amgen Germany, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Onyx Inc. C. Bennison has acted as consultant for Amgen. W. W. Xu has acted as consultant for Amgen. K. Pantiri has acted as consultant for Amgen. M. Hensen has acted as consultant for Amgen. E. Terpos has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda, and research grants from Amgen. W. Bouwmeester has received funding from, and has acted as a consultant for, Amgen. R. Hájek has received funding from Celgene and Amgen and has worked as a consultant for Amgen, Celgene, and Takeda. He has also received honoraria from Amgen. The following authors are employed by the sponsor (Amgen): Sebastian Gonzalez-McQuire and Marco Campioni.

Financial support for this study was provided entirely by Amgen. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report.

Supplemental Material: The online supplementary materials for this article are available on the Medical Decision Making Policy & Practice website at http://journals.sagepub.com/home/mpp .

Contributor Information

Sebastian Gonzalez-McQuire, Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Rotkreuz Switzerland.

Meletios-Athanassios Dimopoulos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.

Katja Weisel, University Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Walter Bouwmeester, Pharmerit International, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Roman Hájek, Department of Hematooncology, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.

Marco Campioni, Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Rotkreuz Switzerland.

Craig Bennison, Pharmerit Ltd, York, UK.

Weiwei Xu, Pharmerit International, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Krystallia Pantiri, Pharmerit International, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Marja Hensen, Pharmerit International, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Evangelos Terpos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.

Stefan Knop, Würzburg University Medical Center, Würzburg, Germany.

References

1. de Mel S, Lim SH, Tung ML, Chng WJ. Implications of heterogeneity in multiple myeloma. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:232546.

2. Dimopoulos MA, Terpos E. Multiple myeloma. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(Suppl. 7):vii143–vii150.

3. De Raeve HR, Vanderkerken K. The role of the bone marrow microenvironment in multiple myeloma. Histol Histopathol. 2005;20(4):1227–50.

4. Pulte D, Jansen L, Castro FA, et al. Trends in survival of multiple myeloma patients in Germany and the United States in the first decade of the 21st century. Br J Haematol. 2015;171(2):189–96.

5. Cancer Research UK. Myeloma survival statistics 2010– 2011. [cited November 26, 2015]. Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/myeloma/survival#heading-Zero

6. Raab MS, Cavo M, Delforge M, et al. Multiple myeloma: practice patterns across Europe. Br J Haematol. 2016;175(1):66–76.

7. Gay F, Palumbo A. Management of disease- and treatment-related complications in patients with multiple myeloma. Med Oncol. 2010;27(Suppl. 1):S43–S52.

8. Kumar SK, Therneau TM, Gertz MA, et al. Clinical course of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004;79(7):867–74.

9. Kumar SK, Lee JH, Lahuerta JJ, et al. Risk of progression and survival in multiple myeloma relapsing after therapy with IMiDs and bortezomib: a multicenter International Myeloma Working Group study. Leukemia. 2012;26(1):149–57.

10. Jakubowiak A. Management strategies for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: current clinical perspectives. Semin Hematol. 2012;49(Suppl. 1):S16–S32.

11. Janssen-Cilag International NV. VELCADE summary of product characteristics [cited December 2, 2015]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000539/WC500048471.pdf

12. Amgen Europe BV. Kyprolis summary of product characteristics [cited August 2, 2016]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003790/WC500197692.pdf

13. Takeda Pharma A/S. Ninlaro summary of product characteristics [cited December 16, 2016]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003844/WC500217620.pdf

14. Celgene Europe Limited. Thalidomide Celgene summary of product characteristics [cited December 2, 2015]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000823/WC500037050.pdf

15. Celgene Europe Limited. Revlimid summary of product characteristics [cited December 2, 2015]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000717/WC500056018.pdf

16. Celgene Europe Limited. Imnovid summary of product characteristics [cited December 2, 2015]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002682/WC500147717.pdf

17. Janssen-Cilag International NV. DARZALEX summary of product characteristics [cited August 8, 2016]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/004077/WC500207296.pdf

18. Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma EEIG. Empliciti summary of product characteristics [cited August 8, 2016]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003967/WC500206673.pdf

19. Novartis Europharm Limited. Farydak summary of product characteristics [cited August 8, 2016]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2015/20150828132600/anx_132600_en.pdf

20. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M ; ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–2. Value Health. 2012;15(6):804–11.

21. Baz R, Lin HM, Hui AM, et al. Development of a conceptual model to illustrate the impact of multiple myeloma and its treatment on health-related quality of life. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(9):2789–97.

22. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM; ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803.

23. Tabberer M, Gonzalez-McQuire S, Muellerova H, et al. Development of a conceptual model of disease progression for use in economic modeling of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(4):440–52. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16662009

24. Radocha J, Pour L, Spicka I, et al. Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG) in the Czech Republic. Blood. 2015;126(23):4514.

25. Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S, Squires H. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 13: Identifying and Reviewing Evidence to Inform the Conceptualisation and Population of Cost-Effectiveness Models. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; (NICE); 2011.

26. Hsu CC, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(10):1–8.

27. Hájek R, Jarkovsky J, Maisnar V, et al. Survival and treatment patterns in patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) in a real-world setting. Poster presented at: European Hematology Association 21st Annual Meeting; June 9–12, 2016; Copenhagen.

28. Hájek R, Jarkovsky J, Bouwmeester W, et al. Predictors of overall survival (OS) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) initiating first- and second-line treatment in the Czech Republic. Abstract presented at: 58th Annual Meeting and Exposition of the American Society of Hematology; December 3–6, 2016; San Diego.

29. Yancik R, Ganz PA, Varricchio CG, Conley B. Perspectives on comorbidity and cancer in older patients: approaches to expand the knowledge base. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(4):1147–51.

30. Bila J, Jelicic J, Djurasinovic V, et al. Prognostic effect of comorbidity indices in elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2015;15(7):416–9.

31. Yong K, Delforge M, Driessen C, et al. Multiple myeloma: patient outcomes in real-world practice. Br J Haematol. 2016;175(2):252–64.

32. Matsue K, Matsue Y, Fujisawa M, et al. Clinical features and treatment outcome of very elderly patients over 80 years old with multiple myeloma: comparison with patients in different age groups in the era of novel agents. Leuk Lymphoma. 2016;57(1):110–5.

33. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Mateos MV, et al. Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: an International Myeloma Working Group report. Blood. 2015;125(13):2068–74.

34. Bird JM Owen RG, D’Sa S, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma 2014. [cited March 2015]. Available from: https://academy.myeloma.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/08/MYELOMA_GUIDELINE_Feb_2014_for_BCSH1.pdf

35. Moreau P, Miguel JS, Ludwig H, et al. Multiple myeloma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(Suppl. 6):vi133–vi137.

36. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Francais du Myelome. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(2):91–7.

37. Child JA, Morgan GJ, Davies FE, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(19):1875–83.

38. Badros A, Goloubeva O, Dalal JS, et al. Neurotoxicity of bortezomib therapy in multiple myeloma: a single-center experience and review of the literature. Cancer. 2007;110(5):1042–9.

39. Corso A, Mangiacavalli S, Varettoni M, Pascutto C, Zappasodi P, Lazzarino M. Bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy in multiple myeloma: a comparison between previously treated and untreated patients. Leuk Res. 2010;34(4):471–4.

40. Dimopoulos MA, Mateos MV, Richardson PG, et al. Risk factors for, and reversibility of, peripheral neuropathy associated with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma: subanalysis of the phase 3 VISTA study. Eur J Haematol. 2011;86(1):23–31.

41. Sonneveld P, Avet-Loiseau H, Lonial S, et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood. 2016;127(24):2955–62.

42. Engelhardt M, Terpos E, Kleber M, et al. European Myeloma Network recommendations on the evaluation and treatment of newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2014;99(2):232–42.

43. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The guidelines manual 2012. [cited July 9, 2015]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/introduction

44. Aurer I, Lauc G, Dumić J, et al. Aberrant glycosylation of IgG heavy chain in multiple myeloma. Coll Antropol. 2007;31(1):247–51.

45. Barkay I, Maziarz RT, Chen AI, Dibb W, Chen Y, Scott EC. Extramedullary multiple myeloma associated with reduced overall survival: a retrospective single-center study. Blood. 2013;122(21):5317.

46. Cifci S, Yilmaz M, Pehlivan M, Sever T, Okan V, Pehlivan S. DNA repair genes polymorphisms in multiple myeloma: no association with XRCC1 (Arg399Gln) polymorphism, but the XRCC4 (VNTR in intron 3 and G-1394T) and XPD (Lys751Gln) polymorphisms is associated with the disease in Turkish patients. Hematology. 2011;16(6):361–7.

47. de Veas Silva JLG, Bermudo C, Harding S, Millán RD. Value of serum free light chains ratio as new biomarker of high prognostic value in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 2013;122(21):1862.

48. de Veas Silva JG, Guitarte CB, Pais T, et al. Relevance of serum free light chains ratio as risk factor of poor prognosis in multiple myeloma. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014;52:S437.

49. Esteves GV, Neves ML, Martins HF, et al. Serum free light chain ratio (FLCr) is a powerful prognostic factor for survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) in the era of new agents namely on ISS stage II patients. Blood. 2013;122(21):3150.

50. Esteves G, Neves ML, Martins H, et al. Serum free light chain ratio (FLCr) is a powerful prognostic factor for survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) eligible for high dose melphalan (HDM). Blood. 2013;122(21):1873.

51. Maltezas D, Sarris K, Koulieris E, et al. Increased serum transforming growth factor-beta1 (Tgf-beta1) is related to a better outcome in MM, WM and CLL patients. Blood. 2012;120(21):4976.

52. Niesvizky R, Richardson PG, Rajkumar SV, et al. The relationship between quality of response and clinical benefit for patients treated on the bortezomib arm of the international, randomized, phase 3 APEX trial in relapsed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2008;143(1):46–53.

53. Sugihara H, Chihara D, Seike K, et al. Percentage of urinary albumin excretion and serum-free light-chain reduction are important determinants of renal response in myeloma patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. Blood Cancer J. 2014;4:e235.

54. Tovar N, de Larrea CF, Elena M, et al. Prognostic impact of serum immunoglobulin heavy/light chain ratio in patients with multiple myeloma in complete remission after autologous stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(7):1076–9.

55. Jekarl DW, Min CK, Kwon A, et al. Impact of genetic abnormalities on the prognoses and clinical parameters of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Lab Med. 2013;33(4):248–54.

56. Kienle DL, Vatter C, Liebisch P, et al. Expression of ATM, MUM1, and P27 as independent prognostic markers in patients with multiple myeloma. Hematol Oncol. 2013;31:201–70.

57. Kuiper R, van Vliet M, Broyl A, et al. Comparison of conventional, FISH and GEP prognostic factors in multiple myeloma: introducing a novel risk stratification. Blood. 2013;122(21):3092.24178959

58. Painuly U, Rajkumar V, Ketterling RP, et al. 17p deleted multiple myeloma: clinical outcomes and predictive factors for acquisition of 17p deletion. Blood. 2013;122(21):1846.

59. Panani AD, Ferti AD, Papaxoinis C, Raptis SA, Roussos Ch. Cytogenetic data as a prognostic factor in multiple myeloma patients: involvement of 1p12 region an adverse prognostic factor. Anticancer Res. 2004;24(6):4141–6.

60. Ailawadhi S, Aldoss IT, Yang D, et al. Outcome disparities in multiple myeloma: a SEER-based comparative analysis of ethnic subgroups. Br J Haematol. 2012;158(1):91–8.

61. Albain KS, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA, Jr, Hershman DL. Racial disparities in cancer survival among randomized clinical trials patients of the Southwest Oncology Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(14):984–92.

62. Alexandrakis MG, Passam FJ, Ganotakis E, et al. Bone marrow microvascular density and angiogenic growth factors in multiple myeloma. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2004;42(10):1122–6.

63. Beason TS, Chang SH, Sanfilippo KM, et al. Influence of body mass index on survival in veterans with multiple myeloma. Oncologist. 2013;18(10):1074–9.

64. Chen T, Berno T, Zangari M. Low-risk identification in multiple myeloma using a new 14-gene model. Eur J Haematol. 2012;89(1):28–36.

65. Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, Roussou M, et al. Renal impairment is not an independent adverse prognostic factor in multiple myeloma patients who are treated upfront with novel agent-based regimens. Blood. 2010;116(21):3033.

66. Rossi D, Fangazio M, De Paoli L, et al. Beta-2 microglobulin is an independent predictor of progression in asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Cancer. 2010;116(9):2188–200.

67. Gleason C, Nooka AK, Langston AA, et al. Survival trends of myeloma patients in the new millennium. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:(15 Suppl.):e17694.

68. Hallgrimsdottir T, Porwit A, Björkholm M, et al. Bone marrow fibrosis in patients with multiple myeloma: a new prognostic factor for survival? Blood. 2013;122(21):1946.

69. Jordan K, Ishak KJ, Lewis P, et al. Determinants of global QOL and physical and social functionality in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2010;116(21):934.

70. Kang M, Jang M, Lee O, et al. Serum level of parathyroid hormone is associated with risk factors and clinical outcomes in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2013;122(21):5365.

71. Kim JE, Yoo C, Lee DH, Kim SW, Lee JS, Suh C. Serum albumin level is a significant prognostic factor reflecting disease severity in symptomatic multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2010;89(4):391–7.

72. McDonagh H, Falk W, Bingman A, et al. Low testosterone levels are associated with shorter progression free survival in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2012;120(21):4978.

73. Terpos E, Migkou M, Christoulas D, et al. Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 is an independent prognostic factor for newly-diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma; reductions post VD and Rd in myeloma patients at first relapse. Blood. 2013;122(21):1916.

74. Paiva B, Gutierrez NC, Chen X, et al. Biological and clinical significance of CD81 expression by clonal plasma cells in high-risk smoldering and symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Blood. 2011;118(21):3936.

75. Pashos CL, Shah JJ, Terebelo HR, et al. Changes in patient-reported outcomes in patients diagnosed with and treated for multiple myeloma in the Connect MM Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(15 Suppl.):8586.

76. Patel KK, Orlowski RZ, Weber DM, et al. Prognostic value of serum lactate dehydrogenase in symptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15 Suppl.):8093.

77. Rifkin RM, Abonour R, Fonseca R, et al. Connect MM: the Multiple Myeloma (MM) Disease registry—incidence of second primary malignancies (SPM). J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15 Suppl.):8037.

78. Sanfilippo KM, Beason T, Chang S, et al. Effect of body mass index (BMI) at diagnosis on survival patterns of multiple myeloma (MM) patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Blood. 2012;120(21):3182.

79. Sewify EM, Afifi OA, Mosad E, Zaki AH, El Gammal SA. Cyclin D1 amplification in multiple myeloma is associated with multidrug resistance expression. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2014;14(3):215–22.

80. Umeda M, Okuda S, Izumi H, et al. Prognostic significance of the serum phosphorus level and its relationship with other prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2006;85(7):469–73.

81. Yakoub-Agha I, Mary JY, Hulin C, et al. Low-dose vs high-dose thalidomide for advanced multiple myeloma: a prospective trial from the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome. Eur J Haematol. 2012;88(3):249–59.

82. Ramsenthaler C, Kane P, Siegert R, et al. What are the predictors of health-related quality of life and cost in multiple myeloma? A meta-analysis. Palliat Med. 2014;28(6):631.

83. Shi Q, Wang XS, Shah N, et al. Prevalence of high symptom burden and its impact on functioning and quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma 3–9 months following autologous transplant. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15 Suppl.):e19580.

84. Bruns I, Büst S, Cadeddu RP, et al. Multiple myeloma infiltration impairs quantity and function of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells leading to anemia by upregulation of the TGF-beta pathway. Onkologie. 2010;33:151.

85. Coleman EA, Goodwin JA, Coon SK, et al. Fatigue, sleep, pain, mood, and performance status in patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34(3):219–27.

86. Pashos CL, Durie BG, Rifkin RM, et al. Race- and health-related quality of life among patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(Suppl.):e18556.

87. Strasser-Weippl K, Ludwig H. Psychosocial QOL is an independent predictor of overall survival in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 2008;81(5):374–9.

88. Alexandrakis MG, Passam FH, Kyriakou DS, Dambaki K, Niniraki M, Stathopoulos E. Ki-67 Proliferation Index: correlation with prognostic parameters and outcome in multiple myeloma. Am J Clin Oncol. 2004;27(1):8–13.

89. Begovic D, Radojkovic M, Kapetanovic S, et al. Preview: prognostic markers for multiple myeloma. Biochim Clin. 2013;37:S611.

90. Hillengass J, Wasser K, Delorme S, et al. Lumbar bone marrow microcirculation measurements from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is a predictor of event-free survival in progressive multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(2 Pt. 1):475–81.

91. Abd El-Aziz A, Hanafy SM, El-Sayed IH, El Sorady M, El Soud SA. Osteoprotegerin gene expression in multiple myeloma patients. Abstract presented at: the International Conference on Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry; Rome, Italy; April 28–30, 2010.

92. de Larrea CF, Zingone A, Manasanch EE, et al. Plasma circulating proteasomes as biomarkers along natural history of asymptomatic monoclonal gammopathies. Blood. 2013;122(21):3133.

93. Reece DE, Zaman F, Trieu Y, et al. Relationship of treatment effects on hemoglobin and M-protein levels in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: final analysis of a retrospective chart review study. Blood. 2009;114(22):4892.

94. Pappa CA, Tsirakis G, Kanellou P, et al. Monitoring serum levels ELR+ CXC chemokines and the relationship between microvessel density and angiogenic growth factors in multiple myeloma. Cytokine. 2011;56(3):616–20.

95. Li C, Chen L, Gao X, et al. Plasma cell labeling index correlates with deletion of 13q14 in multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2011;52(2):260–4.

96. Landry C, Londono D, Devlin SM, et al. Multiple copies of MLL is the most commonly detected cytogenetic abnormality in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and may modify disease risk. Blood. 2013;122(21):1910.

97. Alexandrakis G, Tsirakis G. Circulating levels of soluble angiogenic factors in multiple myeloma: correlation with parameters of disease activity and prognosis. Curr Angiogenesis. 2013;2(2):76–95.

98. Andersen NF, Vogel U, Klausen TW, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene polymorphisms may influence the efficacy of thalidomide in multiple myeloma. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(5):E636–E642.

99. Andrade VC, Vettore AL, Felix RS, et al. Prognostic impact of cancer/testis antigen expression in advanced stage multiple myeloma patients. Cancer Immun. 2008;8:2–10.

100. Barragan CS, Hansson SB, Cicchini SA, et al. Multiple myeloma, detection of four unfavorable genetic prognostic factor by interphase two-color fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses: a study of 33 patients at diagnosis or relapse. Blood. 2012;120(21):5004.

101. Braga W, Silva B, Bortoluzo A, et al. Impact of the expression of genes related to T regulatory cells on the survival of patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2012;120:4005.

102. Calderón C, Montero I, Vallejo A, Martín J, Martino ML. Clinical-biological profile of a group of patients with plasmacytomas: a review of homing behaviour in 68 patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2010;95:568.

103. Calimeri T, Fulciniti M, Lin J, et al. Aberrant non-homologous end joining in multiple myeloma: a role in genomic instability and as potential prognostic marker. Blood. 2012;120(21):2932.

104. Calimeri T, Samur MK, Amodio N, et al. Non Homologous end joining, a marker of genomic instability is elevated in multiple myeloma: a new prognostic factor. Blood. 2013;122(21):124.23656728

105. Chung TH, Fonseca R, Chng WJ. A novel measure of chromosome instability is an independent prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2011;118(21):1824.

106. Durak BA, Akay OM, Sungar G, et al. Conventional and molecular cytogenetic analyses in Turkish patients with multiple myeloma. Turk J Haematol. 2012;29(2):135–42.

107. Fiala MA, Finney JD, Liu J, et al. The impact of race and socioeconomic status on survival in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15 Suppl.):e17554.

108. Fonti R, Larobina M, De Luca S, et al. Metabolic tumor volume assessed by 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of plasma cell mass and prediction of outcome in patients with multiple myeloma. Poster presented at: 23rd Annual Congress of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine; (EANM); October 9–13, 2010; Vienna, Austria.

109. He J, Yang L, Meng X, et al. A retrospective analysis of cytogenetic and clinical characteristics in patients with multiple myeloma. Am J Med Sci. 2013;345(2):88–93.

110. Heintel DH, Schreder M, Bolomsky A, et al. Treatment with lenalidomide overcomes the poor predictive influence of high IRF4 in patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2010;95:144.19850899

111. Hekimgil M, Cağirgan S, Pehlivan M, Doğanavşargil B, Tombuloğlu M, Soydan S. Immunohistochemical detection of CD 95 (Fas) & Fas ligand (Fas-L) in plasma cells of multiple myeloma and its correlation with survival. Leuk Lymphoma. 2006;47(2):271–80.

112. Kara IO, Sahin B, Gunesacar R, Unsal C. Clinical significance of hepatocyte growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor-AB, and transforming growth factor-alpha in bone marrow and peripheral blood of patients with multiple myeloma. Adv Ther. 2006;23(4):635–45.

113. Kelkitli E, Atay MH, Yildiz L, Turgut M. Effect of LIM domain only (LMO2) protein expression on survival in multiple myeloma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(15 Suppl.):e19500.

114. Kleber M, Höck K, Ihorst G, et al. Second malignant neoplasms following multiple myeloma: a cohort study on 744 patients treated 1997–2011. Blood. 2013;122(21):3100.

115. Landry CA, Londono D, Devlin S, et al. Multiple copies of MLL as a commonly detected cytogenetic abnormality in newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15 Suppl.):e19585.

116. Lee JH, Kim K, Kim JS, et al. Clinical profile of multiple myeloma in Asia: an Asian Myeloma Network (AMN) study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15 Suppl.):8097.

117. Maltezas D, Tzenou T, Papanikolaou X, et al. Elevated serum B-lymphocyte stimulator levels in diagnosis are related to disease aggressiveness and adverse survival in multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2009;94:388.

118. Preet M, Liu J, Axiotis CA, Braverman AS, Sidhu GS. Impact of bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) at diagnosis in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(15 Suppl.):e19522.

119. Shah PK, Avet-Loiseau H, Minvielle S, et al. A combined survival model integrating gene expression and alternative splicing events provides higher predicative power for risk stratification. Blood. 2010;116(21):1929.

120. Tsirakis G, Fragioudaki M, Kaparou M, et al. Clinical and prognostic significance of elevated serum baff levels in multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2010;95:387.

121. Uprety D, Churilla TM. Is overall survival in multiple myeloma associated with a shortage in health care providers? A SEER database analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15 Suppl.):e19588.

122. Wu KL, Beverloo B, Lokhorst HM, et al. Abnormalities of chromosome 1p/q are highly associated with chromosome 13/13q deletions and are an adverse prognostic factor for the outcome of high-dose chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2007;136(4):615–23.

123. Himani B, Meera S, Usha R. Ki67 immunostaining and its correlation with microvessel density in patients with multiple myeloma. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2013;29:324–5.

124. Jakob C, Sterz J, Zavrski I, et al. Angiogenesis in multiple myeloma. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(11):1581–90.

125. Joshi S, Khan R, Sharma M, Kumar L, Sharma A. Angiopoietin-2: a potential novel diagnostic marker in multiple myeloma. Clin Biochem. 2011;44(8–9):590–5.

126. Terpos E, Christoulas D, Gkotzamanidou M, et al. Circulating periostin is elevated in patients with multiple myeloma and correlates with advanced disease features and high bone resorption. Blood. 2011;118(21):3922.21841164

127. Sampaio MS, Vettore AL, Yamamoto M, Chauffaille Mde L, Zago MA, Colleoni GW. Expression of eight genes of nuclear factor-kappa B pathway in multiple myeloma using bone marrow aspirates obtained at diagnosis. Histol Histopathol. 2009;24(8):991–7.

128. Chae H, Ryu H, Cha K, Kim M, Kim Y, Min CK. Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin as a biomarker of renal impairment in patients with multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2015;15(1):35–40.

129. Cleeland CS, Wang XS, Thomas SK, et al. Predictive value of baseline serum MIP-1α and CRP on symptom burden and tumor response to induction therapy in patients with multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(Suppl.):8091.

130. Sailors MH, Wang XS, Liu P, et al. Longitudinal relationship between inflammatory markers and patient-reported symptom severity during induction therapy for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15 Suppl.):9083.

131. Vichaya EG, Wang XS, Boyette-Davis JA, et al. Baseline subclinical sensory deficits and the development of pain and numbness in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) being treated with chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15 Suppl.):9082.

132. Terpos E, Christoulas D, Bagratuni T, et al. High levels of periostin in patients with multiple myeloma correlate with low bone formation, increased fracture rate and diffuse MRI pattern: implications into the biology of myeloma bone disease. Blood. 2012;120(21):3967.

133. Terpos E, Tasidou A, Roussou M, et al. Increased expression of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha on trephine biopsies correlates with advanced myeloma extensive bone disease and elevated microvessel density in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2009;94:146.

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

DS_10.1177_2381468318814253 – Supplemental material for Development of an Initial Conceptual Model of Multiple Myeloma to Support Clinical and Health Economics Decision Making

Click here for additional data file.

Supplemental material, DS_10.1177_2381468318814253 for Development of an Initial Conceptual Model of Multiple Myeloma to Support Clinical and Health Economics Decision Making by Sebastian Gonzalez-McQuire, Meletios-Athanassios Dimopoulos, Katja Weisel, Walter Bouwmeester, Roman Hájek, Marco Campioni, Craig Bennison, Weiwei Xu, Krystallia Pantiri, Marja Hensen, Evangelos Terpos and Stefan Knop in MDM Policy & Practice