Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

Clinical prediction tools to identify patients at highest risk of myeloma in primary care: a retrospective open cohort study

Constantinos Koshiaris, Ann Van den Bruel, Brian D Nicholson, Sarah Lay-Flurrie, FD Richard Hobbs and Jason L Oke
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (706): e347-e355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.0697
Constantinos Koshiaris
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Roles: Medical statistician and researcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ann Van den Bruel
Academic Centre for Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian D Nicholson
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Roles: GP and academic clinical lecturer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Lay-Flurrie
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Roles: Senior medical statistician
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FD Richard Hobbs
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Roles: GP and head of department
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jason L Oke
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Roles: Senior statistician
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Calibration and discrimination of full blood count model.

    AUC = area under curve.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Calibration and discrimination of all-test model.

    AUC = area under curve.

Tables

  • Figures
  • How this fits in

    Multiple myeloma is a haematological cancer in which 50% of patients experience symptoms for at least 3 months before diagnosis and have multiple consultations in primary care before referral to secondary care. Symptoms on their own are not predictive enough to suggest referral and they have to be combined with abnormalities in blood tests. The authors of the present study developed two clinical prediction rules that combine patient characteristics, symptoms, and common blood tests to identify patients at high risk of having undiagnosed myeloma. The study found that the prediction rules were shown to have good discrimination, and have the potential to reduce the delays observed in the diagnosis of myeloma.
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Descriptive statistics for derivation dataset

    VariableMissing data (n = 835 404), n (%)aNon-myeloma (n= 834 909), n (%)aMyeloma (n= 495), n (%)a
    Demographics
    Female0 (0.0)492 039 (58.9)227 (45.9)
    Mean age, years (SD)0 (0.0)63.7 (13.8)70.9 (10.5)
    Mean BMI (SD)541 782 (64.9)28.5 (6.2)26.5 (4.6)
    Symptoms
    Back pain0 (0.0)78 291 (9.4)94 (19.0)
    Chest pain0 (0.0)53 256 (6.4)56 (11.3)
    Bone pain0 (0.0)12 933 (1.5)12 (2.4)
    Rib pain0 (0.0)3809 (0.5)8 (1.6)
    Joint pain0 (0.0)35 348 (4.2)19 (3.8)
    Shortness of breath0 (0.0)66 047 (7.9)53 (10.7)
    Chest infections0 (0.0)54 198 (6.5)40 (8.1)
    Fatigue0 (0.0)66 903 (8.0)34 (6.9)
    Nosebleeds0 (0.0)7022 (0.8)14 (2.8)
    Bruising0 (0.0)8682 (1.0)5 (1.0)
    Fracture0 (0.0)13 361 (1.6)12 (2.4)
    Weight loss0 (0.0)10 985 (1.3)12 (2.4)
    Nausea0 (0.0)25 126 (3.0)21 (4.2)
    Blood tests
    2nd FBC test (index)
    Mean haemoglobin (SD)50 292 (6.0)13.5 (1.6)12.0 (1.9)
    Mean white cell count (SD)62 843 (7.5)7.3 (5.2)6.5 (3.6)
    Mean platelets (SD)67 222 (8.0)265.4 (80.2)247.4 (80.6)
    Mean MCV (SD)72 537 (8.7)90.6 (5.9)93.5 (6.1)
    Difference in FBC parameters (2nd – 1st)
    Mean haemoglobin diff (SD)87 941 (10.5)0.01 (1.0)−0.25 (1.1)
    Mean white cell count diff (SD)101 091 (12.1)−0.04 (5.3)0.13 (2.3)
    Mean platelets diff (SD)107 485 (12.9)−1.8 (54.9)−2.9 (61.1)
    Mean MCV diff (SD)114 841 (13.7)0.19 (3.1)−0.06 (2.4)
    Other tests
    Mean calcium (SD)634 969 (76.0)2.3 (0.12)2.4 (0.18)
    Mean creatinine (SD)453 831 (54.3)89.3 (30.2)99.9 (44.9)
    Mean ESR (SD)621 155 (74.4)18.6 (19.5)55.3 (41.7)
    CRP, median (IQR)679 841 (81.4)5 (2 to 10)5 (2.5 to 17)
    Mean PV (SD)798 298 (95.6)1.71 (0.16)1.96 (0.73)
    Blood tests (normal/abnormal)b
    FBC (index test)
    Anaemia50 292 (6.0)120 247/784 649 (15.3)269/463 (58.1)
    Leukopenia62 843 (7.5)22 424/772 119 (2.9)59/442 (13.3)
    Low platelets67 222 (8.0)25 165/767 738 (3.3)44/444 (9.9)
    High MCV72 537 (8.7)52 385/762 443 (6.9)85/424 (20.0)
    Other testsb
    Abnormal calcium634 969 (76.0)4056/200 263 (2.0)14/172 (8.1)
    High creatinine453 831 (54.3)56 106/381 341 (14.7)63/232 (27.2)
    High ESR621 155 (74.4)89 735/214 088 (41.9)129/161 (80.1)
    High CRP679 841 (81.4)51 000/155 452 (32.8)47/111 (42.3)
    High PV798 298 (95.6)14 080/37 084 (38.0)15/22 (68.2)
    • ↵a Unless otherwise stated.

    • ↵b Percentages reported for patients with complete data. Denominator displayed to indicate where missing data applies. BMI = body mass index. CRP = C-reactive protein. ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate. FBC = full blood count. IQR = interquartile range. MCV = mean corpuscular volume. PV = plasma viscosity. SD = standard deviation.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for the final models for myeloma

    VariableFBC model,aAll-test model,b
    HR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)
    Demographics
    Female0.45 (0.37 to 0.54)0.48 (0.39 to 0.58)
    AgecFP (0.5, 0.5)FP (0.5, 0.5)
    Symptoms
    Back pain2.37 (1.89 to 2.98)2.46 (1.96 to 3.10)
    Chest pain1.76 (1.33 to 2.33)1.85 (1.39 to 2.45)
    Rib pain2.94 (1.46 to 5.99)2.81 (1.38 to 5.72)
    Nosebleeds2.26 (1.32 to 3.85)2.11 (1.23 to 3.61)
    FBC
    HaemoglobincFP (3, 3)FP (3, 3)
    White cell countcFP (−2, −2)FP (−2, −2)
    PlateletscFP (−1, −0.5)FP (−0.5, 0)
    MCVcFP (3, 3)FP (3, 3)
    Other tests
    ESRNA1.03 (1.03 to 10.33)
    CalciumcNAFP (−1)
    • ↵a FBC model contains a single FBC.

    • ↵b All-test model contains a single FBC, plus ESR and calcium.

    • ↵c Numerals in parenthesis represent the transformations used. CI = confidence interval. ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

    • FBC = full blood count. FP = fractional polynomials. HR = hazard ratio. MCV = mean corpuscular volume. NA = not applicable.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Comparison of different diagnostic approaches in the validation cohort (after performing imputation)a

    VariablePr, %bSensitivity, % (95% CI)Specificity, % (95% CI)LR+ (95% CI)LR– (95% CI)PPV, % (95% CI)NPV, % (95% CI)
    Symptoms
    Back painNA21.5 (16.5 to 27.2)91.2 (91.1 to 91.3)2.4 (1.9 to 3.1)0.86 (0.81 to 0.92)0.13 (0.10 to 0.17)99.95 (99.94 to 99.96)
    Rib painNA1.2 (0.3 to 3.6)99.5 (99.5 to 99.5)2.5 (0.8 to 7.7)0.99 (0.99 to 1.0)0.14 (0.01 to 0.29)99.94 (99.94 to 99.95)
    Chest painNA9.1 (5.8 to 13.4)93.6 (93.6 to 93.7)1.4 (0.9 to 2.1)0.97 (0.93 to 1.0)0.08 (0.05 to 0.11)99.95 (99.94 to 99.95)
    NosebleedsNA1.2 (0.3 to 3.6)99.2 (99.2 to 99.2)1.6 (0.5 to 4.9)0.99 (0.98 to 1.0)0.09 (0.01 to 0.18)99.94 (99.94 to 99.95)
    FBC (index test)
    Anaemia (any type)NA55.6 (48.6 to 62.5)83.6 (83.5 to 83.7)3.4 (3.2 to 3.6)0.53 (0.39 to 0.67)0.18 (0.15 to 0.21)99.97 (99.96 to 99.98)
    Normocytic anaemiaNA43.5 (37.0 to 50.0)85.1 (84.9 to 85.2)2.9 (2.7 to 3.2)0.66 (0.54 to 0.77)0.15 (0.13 to 0.19)99.96 (99.95 to 99.97)
    Macrocytic anaemiaNA11.9 (8.1 to 15.8)98.5 (98.4 to 98.6)8.1 (6.3 to 9.8)0.89 (0.84 to 0.95)0.43 (0.26 to 0.61)99.95 (99.94 to 99.96)
    Low plateletsNA8.3 (5.5 to 11.1)96.5 (96.4 to 96.6)2.4 (1.9 to 2.9)0.95 (0.91 to 0.98)0.13 (0.07 to 0.18)99.95 (99.94 to 99.96)
    Low WCCNA7.0 (4.5 to 9.6)96.9 (96.9 to 97.0)2.3 (1.7 to 2.9)0.96 (0.93 to 0.99)0.13 (0.06 to 0.19)99.94 (99.94 to 99.95)
    High MCVNA22.9 (17.5 to 28.4)91.6 (91.5 to 91.7)2.8 (2.3 to 3.2)0.84 (0.76 to 0.92)0.15 (0.10 to 0.19)99.95 (99.94 to 99.96)
    Other tests
    HypercalcemiaNA5.7 (1.9 to 9.6)98.3 (98.2 to 98.4)3.4 (1.3 to 5.5)0.96 (0.91 to 1.0)0.19 (0.04 to 0.33)99.95 (99.94 to 99.96)
    High ESRNA80.3 (70.4 to 90.3)54.8 (54.5 to 55.1)1.7 (1.6 to 1.9)0.35 (0.08 to 0.63)0.10 (0.08 to 0.11)99.98 (99.97 to 99.99)
    High ESR or anaemiaNA90.5 (81.4 to 99.5)50.0 (49.8 to 50.3)1.8 (1.7 to 1.9)0.19 (0.13 to 0.28)0.10 (0.08 to 0.12)99.99 (99.98 to 99.99)
    High ESR and anaemiaNA45.5 (38.9 to 51.9)88.4 (88.2 to 88.5)3.9 (3.6 to 4.2)0.62 (0.50 to 0.74)0.20 (0.17 to 0.25)99.96 (99.96 to 99.97)
    FBC model
    77th percentilec0.0678.9 (73.2 to 83.9)77.2 (77.1 to 77.3)3.5 (3.2 to 3.7)0.27 (0.21 to 0.35)0.19 (0.16 to 0.22)99.98 (99.97 to 99.98)
    90th percentile0.1261.6 (55.1 to 67.7)90.2 (90.1 to 90.3)6.3 (5.7 to 6.9)0.43 (0.36 to 0.50)0.34 (0.29 to 0.40)99.98 (99.97 to 99.98)
    95th percentile0.2041.3 (35.1 to 47.8)95.1 (95.0 to 95.2)8.4 (7.3 to 9.8)0.62 (0.55 to 0.69)0.46 (0.37 to 0.55)99.96 (99.96 to 99.97)
    99th percentile0.6018.2 (13.5 to 23.6)99.1 (99.1 to 99.1)19.9 (15.2 to 26.1)0.83 (0.78 to 0.88)1.10 (0.80 to 1.40)99.95 (99.95 to 99.96)
    99.5th percentile0.9012.8 (8.9 to 17.7)99.5 (99.5 to 99.6)27.6 (19.8 to 38.4)0.88 (0.84 to 0.92)1.50 (1.00 to 2.10)99.95 (99.95 to 99.96)
    99.9th percentile2.204.1 (2.0 to 7.5)99.9 (99.9 to 99.9)42.4 (23.5 to 82.9)0.96 (0.94 to 0.99)2.30 (1.10 to 4.10)99.95 (99.94 to 99.95)
    All-test model
    84th percentilec0.0682.6 (77.3 to 87.2)83.9 (83.8 to 84.0)5.1 (4.8 to 5.4)0.21 (0.16 to 0.27)0.28 (0.24 to 0.32)99.98 (99.98 to 99.99)
    90th percentile0.0971.9 (65.8 to 77.5)90.3 (90.2 to 90.4)7.4 (6.9 to 8.0)0.31 (0.25 to 0.38)0.40 (0.34 to 0.47)99.98 (99.97 to 99.98)
    95th percentile0.1562.4 (56.8 to 68.5)95.1 (95.0 to 95.1)12.9 (11.7 to 14.2)0.40 (0.34 to 0.47)0.70 (0.59 to 0.81)99.98 (99.97 to 99.98)
    99th percentile0.4534.3 (28.3 to 40.6)99.0 (99.0to 99.1)35.1 (29.4 to 41.9)0.66 (0.61 to 0.73)1.9 (1.5 to 2.3)99.96 (99.96 to 99.97)
    99.5th percentile0.7024.0 (18.7 to 29.9)99.5 (99.5 to 99.5)48.9 (38.9 to 61.4)0.76 (0.71 to 0.82)2.6 (2.0 to 3.3)99.96 (99.95 to 99.96)
    99.9th percentile1.907.8 (4.8 to 12.0)99.9 (99.9 to 99.9)80.5 (51.8 to 125.0)0.92 (0.89 to 0.96)4.2 (2.5 to 6.4)99.95 (99.94 to 99.95)
    • ↵a Results presented are based on multiple imputation as described in the methods section.

    • ↵b Pr = corresponding probability (%) of the selected risk score percentile.

    • ↵c These percentile values were selected to match the background prevalence in the whole cohort. ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate. FBC = full blood count. LR– = negative likelihood ratio. LR+ = positive likelihood ratio. MCV = mean corpuscular volume. NA = not applicable. NPV = negative predictive value. PPV = positive predictive value. WCC = white cell count.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Performance of the different diagnostic approaches in a population of 100 000 tested individuals based on the validation cohort measures

    VariablePer 100 000 patients (60 myeloma cases), nRatio of false alarms to cancers diagnosedRatio of true negatives to cancers missed
    Cancers diagnosedFalse alarmsCancers missedCorrectly spared investigations
    Symptoms
    Back pain1389954790 945692 to 11935 to 1
    Chest pain559965593 9441199 to 11708 to 1
    Rib pain15005999 440500 to 11685 to 1
    Nosebleeds18005999 140800 to 11680 to 1
    FBC (index test)
    Anaemia (any type)3416 9902682 950500 to 13190 to 1
    Low platelets529985596 942600 to 11763 to 1
    Low WCC429995696 941750 to 11731 to 1
    High MCV1479954691 945571 to 11998 to 1
    Other tests
    Hypercalcemiaa419995697 941500 to 11748 to 1
    High ESRa4844 9731254 967936 to 14581 to 1
    High ESR or anaemiaa5449 970649 970925 to 18328 to 1
    High ESR and anaemiaa2711 9933387 947444 to 12665 to 1
    FBC model
    Prevalence4822 9861276 954479 to 16412 to 1
    90th percentile3799942389 946270 to 13910 to 1
    95th percentile2549973594 943200 to 12712 to 1
    99th percentile119994998 94191 to 12019 to 1
    All-test modela
    Prevalence5016 0901083 850322 to 18385 to 1
    90th percentile4399941789 946232 to 15290 to 1
    95th percentile3749972394 943135 to 14127 to 1
    99th percentile209994098 94125 to 12473 to 1
    • ↵a Corresponds to the performance measures if ESR and calcium were to be ordered for all patients in the sample. ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate. FBC = full blood count.

    • MCV = mean corpuscular volume. WCC = white cell count.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary material is not copyedited or typeset, and is published as supplied by the author(s). The author(s) retain(s) responsibility for its accuracy.

  • BJGP.2020.0697_suppl.pdf
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 71 (706)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 71, Issue 706
May 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical prediction tools to identify patients at highest risk of myeloma in primary care: a retrospective open cohort study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Clinical prediction tools to identify patients at highest risk of myeloma in primary care: a retrospective open cohort study
Constantinos Koshiaris, Ann Van den Bruel, Brian D Nicholson, Sarah Lay-Flurrie, FD Richard Hobbs, Jason L Oke
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (706): e347-e355. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2020.0697

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Clinical prediction tools to identify patients at highest risk of myeloma in primary care: a retrospective open cohort study
Constantinos Koshiaris, Ann Van den Bruel, Brian D Nicholson, Sarah Lay-Flurrie, FD Richard Hobbs, Jason L Oke
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (706): e347-e355. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2020.0697
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • cancer
  • diagnosis
  • epidemiology
  • myeloma
  • primary care

More in this TOC Section

  • Antibiotics versus no treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria in residents of aged care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Supporting people with pain-related distress in primary care consultations: a qualitative study
  • Primary care practice and cancer suspicion during the first three COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a qualitative study
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242