Renal impairment (RI) is a negative prognostic factor in Multiple Myeloma (MM) and affected patients are often excluded from autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, it remains unclear whether historically inferior outcome data still hold true. From a total of 475 eligible MM patients who had undergone ASCT between 1998 and 2016, 374 were included in this multi-centric retrospective cohort study. Renal function was determined both at the time of MM diagnosis and ASCT by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR according to the MDRD formula, RI defined as eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2). Patients were categorized into 3 groups: A) no RI diagnosis and ASCT, B) RI at diagnosis with normalization before ASCT and C) RI both at the time of diagnosis and ASCT. Log-rank testing was used for overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS) analysis. While severe RI at MM diagnosis confers a risk of shorter OS, MM progression after ASCT is not affected by any stage of renal failure. It can be concluded that ASCT can be safely carried out in MM patients with mild to moderate RI and should be pro-actively considered in those with severe RI. When comparing all groups, no difference in OS and PFS was found (p = 0.319 and p = 0.904). After further stratification according to the degree of RI at the time of diagnosis, an OS disadvantage was detected for patients with an eGFR < 45 ml/min/m2. PFS was not affected by any RI stage.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by serial relapses, necessitating the application of sequential lines of therapy (LoT). Reports on attrition rates (ARs) vary widely. The present study analysed ARs from the Austrian Myeloma Registry. Attrition was defined as being either deceased, progressive without having received another LoT, or lack of follow-up for ≥5 years. A total of 571 patients diagnosed between January 2009 and August 2021 were included (median age: 72 years; median follow-up: 50.8 months). Some 507 patients received at least one LoT. Of the total, 43.6% underwent autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT, transplant eligible = TE)) with primarily VRd (Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone) given as induction (26.5%), followed by lenalidomide maintenance in 55.7% of cases. Transplant-ineligible (NTE) patients were predominantly treated with Vd (Bortezomib/Dexamethasone, 21.6%), receiving maintenance in 27.1%. A total of 37.5% received a second LoT. ARs across one to five LoTs were 16.7–27%. Frontline induction/ SCT followed by maintenance reduced ARs associated with age and achievement of deep remission in the frontline. Deep remission prolongs follow-up and time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), while high-risk-cyctogenetics negatively affected these outcomes. Our results demonstrate considerably lower ARs for MM patients within the AMR data versus other healthcare systems. Young age and the achievement of significant remissions after optimal frontline therapy resulted in particularly low ARs. These promising results support a key role for the ease of drug access and reimbursement policies in governing long-term MM patient outcomes.

Summary: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have gained increasing importance in oncology. PROs can supplement medical treatment with important information about the patient’s quality of life (QoL), which is typically assessed using standardized questionnaires. PROs capture the symptomatology and functional impairments as perceived by the patient without further interpretation by another party. In this article, we describe how routinely assessed electronic PROs (ePROs) at the outpatient unit of the Department of Hematology Innsbruck complement the Austrian Myeloma Registry (AMR) and clinical routine. There is a broad body of literature showing that ePRO assessments can supplement patient–physician contact and help focus communication on clinically relevant issues that matter for the patient. Based on ePRO results, physicians can initiate clinical action such as referring patients to psycho-oncological treatment. Electronic PRO assessments might facilitate communication between healthcare providers among themselves but also between healthcare providers and patients, and make it possible to incorporate the patients’ point of view into treatment in a standardized way. The example depicted herein demonstrates how ePRO assessments can be integrated and used in routine monitoring and for psycho-oncological screening.