Development of a new clinical index to easily assess frailty of elderly patients with multiple myeloma in Asian population

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 11; no. 1; p. 22907
• Main Authors: Lee, Ho Sup, Lee, JiHyun, Jo, Jae-Cheol, Jung, Sung-Hoon, Lee, Je-Jung, Kim, Dajung, Lee, Sangjin, Song, Kevin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 25-11-2021; Nature Publishing Group; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: 692/4028; 692/4028/67; 692/499; Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Asians; Decision Support Techniques; Feasibility Studies; Female; Frail Elderly; Frailty; Frailty - diagnosis; Frailty - ethnology; Frailty - mortality; Geriatric Assessment; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; multidisciplinary; Multiple myeloma; Multiple Myeloma - diagnosis; Multiple Myeloma - drug therapy; Multiple Myeloma - ethnology; Multiple Myeloma - mortality; Patients; Predictive Value of Tests; Progression-Free Survival; Republic of Korea; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Survival; Republic of Korea
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02433-6

The number of elderly people is rapidly growing, and the proportion of elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM) continues to increase. This study aimed to develop a frailty assessment tool based on clinical data and to estimate its feasibility in elderly patients with MM. This study analyzed data from 728 elderly transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM who were treated between January 2010 and October 2019. Our clinical frailty index included age (< 75, and ≥ 75 years), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI; < 3 and ≥ 3), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score (ECOG score; 0, 1–2, and ≥ 3). Patients were classified as fit, intermediate, or frail if they had a score of 0, 1, or ≥ 2, respectively. The overall survival rates differed significantly according to frailty (fit vs. intermediate: hazard ratio [HR] = 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.43–4.06;
P
 = 0.001; fit vs. frail: HR = 4.61; 95% CI = 2.74–7.77;
P
 < 0.001 and intermediate vs. frail: HR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.49–2.45,
P
 < 0.001, respectively). The frail had significantly shorter EFS compared with the fit and intermediate group in our frailty index (fit vs. intermediate: HR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.92–1.96,
P
 = 0.132; fit vs. frail: HR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.40–3.02,
P
 < 0.001; and intermediate vs. frail: HR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.22–1.92,
P
 < 0.001, respectively). The new clinical frailty index, which is based on age, CCI, and ECOG PS, can easily assess frailty in elderly patients with MM and can be helpful in predicting survival outcomes in real world clinical setting.