Key result
Novel 3-factor clinical score outperforms HFA-ICOS for predicting cardiovascular events in multiple myeloma with ~0.78 AUC.
Why the study?
Prediction tools that are practical at treatment initiation to stratify cardiovascular risk during multiple myeloma treatment are limited and their discriminative performance in real-world cohorts is uncertain.
Does a simple baseline clinical score improve risk discrimination for cardiovascular events compared to established risk models in patients undergoing treatment for multiple myeloma?
Cohort (n=25)
Does a simple baseline clinical score improve risk discrimination for cardiovascular events compared to established risk models in patients undergoing treatment for multiple myeloma?
A simple clinical score based on dyslipidaemia, prior atrial fibrillation, and prior heart failure may better predict cardiovascular events in multiple myeloma patients than existing established risk models.
May aid CV risk stratification in multiple myeloma; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Introduction Cardiovascular events are increasingly recognised during treatment for multiple myeloma, yet prediction tools that are practical at treatment initiation are limited. Whether commonly used cardiovascular (HFA-ICOS) and myeloma-specific (R-MCI, ISS, R-ISS) scores discriminate risk of treatment-related cardiovascular events remains uncertain in real-world cohorts. Purpose To derive a simple baseline clinical risk score for cardiovascular events during multiple myeloma treatment and compare its discriminative performance with HFA-ICOS risk class, R-MCI class, ISS and R-ISS. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of a real-world cohort of patients with multiple myeloma. The primary endpoint was a composite cardiovascular event during treatment (heart failure, atrial fibrillation, other arrhythmias, stroke, cardiovascular hospitalisation or cardiovascular death). Patients were considered evaluable if at least one component was recorded. Baseline predictors were screened using Fisher’s exact test. A parsimonious point-based score was constructed from the strongest baseline predictors. Discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared with HFA-ICOS, R-MCI, ISS and R-ISS. Results Of 25 patients, 24 were evaluable for the composite endpoint; 9/24 (37.5%) experienced a cardiovascular event. Baseline dyslipidaemia was associated with events (OR 9.63, p=0.033), while prior atrial fibrillation and prior heart failure showed directionally higher risk but did not reach statistical significance due to small numbers (atrial fibrillation: separation with p=0.13; heart failure: OR 3.25, p=0.33). A simple score was derived assigning 2 points for dyslipidaemia, 2 points for prior atrial fibrillation and 1 point for prior heart failure (range 0–5). Event rates increased from 15.4% (score 0) to 60.0% (score 2), 50.0% (score 3) and 100% (scores 4–5). The derived score showed good discrimination (AUC 0.78, n=24). In comparison, discriminative performance was limited for established scores: HFA-ICOS AUC 0.52 (n=23), R-MCI AUC 0.38 (n=23), ISS AUC 0.46 (n=24) and R-ISS AUC 0.56 (n=24). Conclusion A simple baseline clinical score incorporating dyslipidaemia, prior atrial fibrillation and prior heart failure stratified risk of cardiovascular events during multiple myeloma treatment and outperformed HFA-ICOS, R-MCI, ISS and R-ISS in this cohort. This pragmatic approach may support targeted cardio-oncology surveillance at treatment initiation. External validation in larger cohorts is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alves et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Multiple myeloma (n=25). Derived clinical risk score (dyslipidaemia, prior atrial fibrillation, prior heart failure) vs. Established risk models (HFA-ICOS, R-MCI, ISS, R-ISS) was evaluated on Composite cardiovascular event during treatment (heart failure, atrial fibrillation, other arrhythmias, stroke, cardiovascular hospitalisation or cardiovascular death) (AUC 0.78). A derived 3-factor clinical risk score successfully discriminated cardiovascular events during multiple myeloma treatment, outperforming the HFA-ICOS score (AUC 0.78 vs 0.52).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: