Philipp M Altrock1, Jeremy Ferlic1, Tobias Galla1, Michael H Tomasson1, Franziska Michor1. 1. Philipp M. Altrock, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute; Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; Jeremy Ferlic and Franziska Michor, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston; Franziska Michor, Center for Cancer Evolution, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and The Ludwig Center at Harvard, Boston; Broad Institute of Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; Tobias Galla, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; and Michael H. Tomasson, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent advances have uncovered therapeutic interventions that might reduce the risk of progression of premalignant diagnoses, such as monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) to multiple myeloma (MM). It remains unclear how to best screen populations at risk and how to evaluate the ability of these interventions to reduce disease prevalence and mortality at the population level. To address these questions, we developed a computational modeling framework. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used individual-based computational modeling of MGUS incidence and progression across a population of diverse individuals to determine best screening strategies in terms of screening start, intervals, and risk-group specificity. Inputs were life tables, MGUS incidence, and baseline MM survival. We measured MM-specific mortality and MM prevalence after MGUS detection from simulations and mathematic modeling predictions. RESULTS: Our framework is applicable to a wide spectrum of screening and intervention scenarios, including variation of the baseline MGUS to MM progression rate and evolving MGUS, in which progression increases over time. Given the currently available point estimate of progression risk reduction to 61% risk, starting screening at age 55 years and performing follow-up screening every 6 years reduced total MM prevalence by 19%. The same reduction could be achieved with starting screening at age 65 years and performing follow-up screening every 2 years. A 40% progression risk reduction per patient with MGUS per year would reduce MM-specific mortality by 40%. Specifically, screening onset age and screening frequency can change disease prevalence, and progression risk reduction changes both prevalence and disease-specific mortality. Screening would generally be favorable in high-risk individuals. CONCLUSION: Screening efforts should focus on specifically identified groups with high lifetime risk of MGUS, for which screening benefits can be significant. Screening low-risk individuals with MGUS would require improved preventions.
PURPOSE: Recent advances have uncovered therapeutic interventions that might reduce the risk of progression of premalignant diagnoses, such as monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) to multiple myeloma (MM). It remains unclear how to best screen populations at risk and how to evaluate the ability of these interventions to reduce disease prevalence and mortality at the population level. To address these questions, we developed a computational modeling framework. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used individual-based computational modeling of MGUS incidence and progression across a population of diverse individuals to determine best screening strategies in terms of screening start, intervals, and risk-group specificity. Inputs were life tables, MGUS incidence, and baseline MM survival. We measured MM-specific mortality and MM prevalence after MGUS detection from simulations and mathematic modeling predictions. RESULTS: Our framework is applicable to a wide spectrum of screening and intervention scenarios, including variation of the baseline MGUS to MM progression rate and evolving MGUS, in which progression increases over time. Given the currently available point estimate of progression risk reduction to 61% risk, starting screening at age 55 years and performing follow-up screening every 6 years reduced total MM prevalence by 19%. The same reduction could be achieved with starting screening at age 65 years and performing follow-up screening every 2 years. A 40% progression risk reduction per patient with MGUS per year would reduce MM-specific mortality by 40%. Specifically, screening onset age and screening frequency can change disease prevalence, and progression risk reduction changes both prevalence and disease-specific mortality. Screening would generally be favorable in high-risk individuals. CONCLUSION: Screening efforts should focus on specifically identified groups with high lifetime risk of MGUS, for which screening benefits can be significant. Screening low-risk individuals with MGUS would require improved preventions.
Authors: Ola Landgren; Gloria Gridley; Ingemar Turesson; Neil E Caporaso; Lynn R Goldin; Dalsu Baris; Thomas R Fears; Robert N Hoover; Martha S Linet Journal: Blood Date: 2005-10-06 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: O Landgren; B I Graubard; J A Katzmann; R A Kyle; I Ahmadizadeh; R Clark; S K Kumar; A Dispenzieri; A J Greenberg; T M Therneau; L J Melton; N Caporaso; N Korde; M Roschewski; R Costello; G M McQuillan; S V Rajkumar Journal: Leukemia Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Robert A Kyle; Terry M Therneau; S Vincent Rajkumar; Dirk R Larson; Matthew F Plevak; Janice R Offord; Angela Dispenzieri; Jerry A Katzmann; L Joseph Melton Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-03-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ola Landgren; Robert A Kyle; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Jerry A Katzmann; Neil E Caporaso; Richard B Hayes; Angela Dispenzieri; Shaji Kumar; Raynell J Clark; Dalsu Baris; Robert Hoover; S Vincent Rajkumar Journal: Blood Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Shaji K Kumar; S Vincent Rajkumar; Angela Dispenzieri; Martha Q Lacy; Suzanne R Hayman; Francis K Buadi; Steven R Zeldenrust; David Dingli; Stephen J Russell; John A Lust; Philip R Greipp; Robert A Kyle; Morie A Gertz Journal: Blood Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Laura Rosiñol; M Teresa Cibeira; Silvia Montoto; María Rozman; Jordi Esteve; Xavier Filella; Joan Bladé Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Russell C Rockne; Andrea Hawkins-Daarud; Kristin R Swanson; James P Sluka; James A Glazier; Paul Macklin; David A Hormuth; Angela M Jarrett; Ernesto A B F Lima; J Tinsley Oden; George Biros; Thomas E Yankeelov; Kit Curtius; Ibrahim Al Bakir; Dominik Wodarz; Natalia Komarova; Luis Aparicio; Mykola Bordyuh; Raul Rabadan; Stacey D Finley; Heiko Enderling; Jimmy Caudell; Eduardo G Moros; Alexander R A Anderson; Robert A Gatenby; Artem Kaznatcheev; Peter Jeavons; Nikhil Krishnan; Julia Pelesko; Raoul R Wadhwa; Nara Yoon; Daniel Nichol; Andriy Marusyk; Michael Hinczewski; Jacob G Scott Journal: Phys Biol Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 2.959