Racial disparities in the prevalence of monoclonal gammopathies: a population-based study of 12 482 persons from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey
Leukemia: official journal of the Leukemia Society of America, Leukemia Research Fund, U.K (Impact Factor: 10.43). 01/2014; 28(7). DOI: 10.1038/leu.2014.34
Multiple myeloma (MM) incidence is markedly higher in blacks compared with whites, which may be related to a higher prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Our objective was to define the prevalence and risk factors of MGUS in a large cohort representative of the United States (U.S.) population. Stored serum samples from National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) III or NHANES 1999-2004 were available for 12 482 persons age 50 years (2331 'black', 2475 Hispanics, 7051 'white', and 625 'others') on which agarose-gel electrophoresis, serum protein immunofixation, serum free light-chain assay, and M-protein typing were performed. MGUS was identified in 365 participants (2.4%). Adjusted prevalence of MGUS was significantly higher (P<0.001) in blacks (3.7%) compared with whites (2.3%) (P=0.001) or Hispanics (1.8%), as were characteristics that posed a greater risk of progression to MM. The adjusted prevalence of MGUS was 3.1% and 2.1% for the North/Midwest versus South/West regions of the U.S., respectively (P=0.052). MGUS is significantly more common in blacks, and more often has features associated with higher risk of progression to MM. A strong geographic disparity in prevalence of MGUS between the North/Midwest versus the South/West regions of the U.S. was found, which has etiologic implications.Leukemia accepted article preview online, 20 January 2014. doi:10.1038/leu.2014.34.
Article: Paraproteinemic neuropathies[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The paraproteinemias are a heterogeneous group of disorders in which monoclonal plasma cells cause the proliferation of monoclonal proteins. They are of importance to neurologists because they often occur in association with neuropathies. The neurologist plays a particularly important role when the neuropathy is the presenting feature, in which case he or she may uncover clinical, laboratory, radiologic, electrodiagnostic, or biopsy findings that lead to identification of the underlying paraproteinemia. The frequency of neuropathies in these patients, and the extent to which such neuropathies dominate the clinical picture, varies significantly between the different paraproteinemias. Treatments may be aimed specifically at the neuropathy, or against the underlying hematological disorder. In all patients with paraproteinemias, the neurologist can work collaboratively with the hematologist to formulate therapeutic plans and goals and can provide follow-up and monitoring to determine the response of the neuropathy to treatment.1 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Muscle & Nerve 10/2014; 51(1). DOI:10.1002/mus.24471 · 2.28 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This International Myeloma Working Group consensus updates the disease definition of multiple myeloma to include validated biomarkers in addition to existing requirements of attributable CRAB features (hypercalcaemia, renal failure, anaemia, and bone lesions). These changes are based on the identification of biomarkers associated with near inevitable development of CRAB features in patients who would otherwise be regarded as having smouldering multiple myeloma. A delay in application of the label of multiple myeloma and postponement of therapy could be detrimental to these patients. In addition to this change, we clarify and update the underlying laboratory and radiographic variables that fulfil the criteria for the presence of myeloma-defining CRAB features, and the histological and monoclonal protein requirements for the disease diagnosis. Finally, we provide specific metrics that new biomarkers should meet for inclusion in the disease definition. The International Myeloma Working Group recommends the implementation of these criteria in routine practice and in future clinical trials, and recommends that future studies analyse any differences in outcome that might occur as a result of the new disease definition. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.The Lancet Oncology 11/2014; 15(12):e538-e548. DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5 · 24.69 Impact Factor
- JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 11/2014; 312(20):2160-1. DOI:10.1001/jama.2014.8237 · 35.29 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.