Association of IMWG frailty score with health-related quality of life profile of patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma in Italy and the UK: a GIMEMA, multicentre, cross-sectional study

Original Paper Optimizing individualized therapy decision-making in multiple myeloma (MM): Integration and impact of the Revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index in the MM-Tumor Board

“…9 This integration allows all users to readily distinguish t from frail patients and expeditiously adjust therapy intensity during our weekly performed interdisciplinary MM-TB discussion. 9,10,13,14 While various functional tests, including different comorbidity scores and geriatric functional tests have been examined, 13,[27][28][29][30] the R-MCI was explicitly helpful to individualize treatment decisions and improving the tolerance of MM therapy. 10 Additionally, the R-MCI has been recognized as the only comorbidity index that did not show signi cant differences in risk group distribution for both retrospective and prospective data, thus it was reliably assessable from both data sets.…”

“…Instead, FA is superior in specifying patients' constitution and biological age [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]24 which is why treatment decisions should rather depend on FA tools, such as R-MCI or others. 12,23,24,[27][28][29][30] Strengths of our analysis included the precise examination of a large MM-TB cohort, the repeated R-MCI analysis, and the observed dose reduction, well-associated with R-MCI-, rather than age-subgroups. Our observation period of 3 years was substantial, and the detailed examination of patients with various numbers of TB presentations and deterioration in their health status (R-MCI) exhibited their complexity.…”

“…The aim of this study was therefore not to determine exact therapy choices of newly diagnosed MM vs. relapsed/refractory MM, or within different therapy lines, nor whether patients did pro t from dose-reductions, because we and others had shown this in prior publications. 7,8,10,[27][28][29][30][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] Moreover, our follow-up assessment was conducted within a relatively short period which should ideally be performed after ~ 1 year, according to Scheubeck and Holler. 10,13 Another criticism may arise from the retrospective evaluation of three patients (whose R-MCI was unavailable in TOS and who received different, more intensive treatment due to the unavailability of their R-MCI).…”

Financial Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life Profile of Patients With Hematologic Malignancies Treated in a Universal Health Care System

“…We performed a secondary analysis by merging data sets from six multicenter studies conducted by the Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA). [22][23][24][25][26][27] This pooled data set contained socioeconomic, clinical and patientreported outcomes (PROs) data of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and relapsed/ refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). For each included study except one, we used for the analysis the HRQoL baseline assessment (details of data sets used are provided in Appendix Table A1, online only).…”

Comorbidity indices for prognostic evaluation in multiple myeloma: a comprehensive evaluation of the Revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index and other comorbidity indices with pro- and retrospective applications

“…Comorbidity/frailty scores (comorbidity indices [CI]) have shown prognostic precision to define "fit" versus "frail" patients. [2][3][4] They may also prove advantageous to adjust patient-specific regimens and reduce therapy-induced side effects. 5,6 There are several CI in clinical use, for example the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) frailty index or Revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index (R-MCI) apart from others (Online Supplementary Table S1).…”