Title |
Early detection of multiple myeloma in primary care using blood tests: a case–control study in primary care
|
---|---|
Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, August 2018
|
DOI | 10.3399/bjgp18x698357 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Constantinos Koshiaris, Ann Van den Bruel, Jason L Oke, Brian D Nicholson, Elizabeth Shephard, Mick Braddick, William Hamilton |
Abstract |
Multiple myeloma is a haematological cancer characterised by numerous non-specific symptoms leading to diagnostic delay in a large proportion of patients. To identify which blood tests are useful in suggesting or excluding a diagnosis of myeloma. A matched case-control study set in UK primary care using routinely collected data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Symptom prevalence and blood tests were analysed up to 5 years before diagnosis in 2703 cases and 12 157 matched controls. Likelihood ratios (LR) were used to classify tests or their combinations as useful rule-in tests (LR+ = ≥5), or rule-out tests (LR- = ≤0.2). Raised plasma viscosity (PV) had an LR+ = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7 to 2.3; erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) 1.9, 95% CI = 1.7 to 2.0; and C-reactive protein (CRP) 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.4. A normal haemoglobin had an LR- = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.45; calcium LR- = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.83; and creatinine LR- = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.83. The test combination with the lowest LR- was all normal haemoglobin with calcium and PV, which had an LR- = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.18, though the LR- for normal haemoglobin and PV together was 0.12 (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.23). Plasma viscosity and ESR are better for both ruling in and ruling out the disease compared with C-reactive protein. A combination of a normal ESR or PV and normal haemoglobin is a simple rule-out approach for patients currently being tested in primary care. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 31 | 63% |
United States | 2 | 4% |
Australia | 2 | 4% |
Japan | 1 | 2% |
Ireland | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 27 | 55% |
Scientists | 14 | 29% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 14% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 5 | 23% |
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 5 | 23% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
Other | 2 | 9% |
Other | 4 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 41% |
Unspecified | 6 | 27% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 18% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 9% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
Other | 0 | 0% |