# Overall survival in multiple myeloma in Brazil: A cohort of 16 years

## TL;DR

This study analyzed 16 years of data to assess survival rates in multiple myeloma patients in Brazil and found that bortezomib-based treatment improved survival.

## Contribution

The study provides real-world evidence on treatment effectiveness and survival outcomes for multiple myeloma in Brazil over a 16-year period.

## Key findings

- Bortezomib-based chemotherapy showed the best overall survival of 67 months.
- Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was associated with the longest survival of 87 months.
- Thalidomide-based regimens had an overall survival of 54 months.

## Abstract

Multiple myeloma constitutes approximately 1 % of all malignancies, with a higher incidence observed in over 65-year-old individuals. New technologies have shown promising results with an increased overall survival. The objective of this cohort study was to evaluate the survival analysis of patients with multiple myeloma treated by the Brazilian Unified Health Service over 16 years and compare the effectiveness of bortezomib (Bortezomib)-based treatment with other regimens used. A retrospective national cohort study was conducted utilizing real-world evidence derived from the Brazilian Unified Health System big data. This study focused on 25,370 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent chemotherapy between 2000 and 2015. Of these patients, 50.71 % were male, and the median age was 62 years. The median overall survival was 37 months. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) was the best prognostic factor with overall survival of 87 months. The bortezomib (Bortezomib)-based chemotherapy provided the best results of the different chemotherapy regimens in terms of overall survival (67 months), followed by thalidomide-based schemes with an overall survival of 54 months. Despite the significant progress made in the Brazilian health system, the National Committee for Technology Incorporation (CONITEC) needs to make quicker decisions to improve access to new oncology drugs for patients, while maintaining rigorous evaluation criteria. Earlier adoption and adequate funding for oncology services could have saved more lives compared to the treatments made available by the Unified Health Service at that time.