Practice patterns in myeloma bone disease: a multi-center survey
11 affiliations
- 1University of Wisconsin-Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison
- 2Department of Medicine, Michigan State University
- 3Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota
- 4Division of Hematology and Oncology, United States, University of Washington
- 5Department of Hematology-Oncology, Indiana University
- 6Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa
- 7Department of Internal Medicine, Ohio State University
- 8Division of Hematology, University of Nebraska Medical Center
- 9Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Illinois-Chicago
- 10Department of Internal Medicine, Penn State Cancer Institute, Pennsylvania State University
- 11Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan
Abstract
Background: Bone disease is a common manifestation of multiple myeloma. Although anti-resorptive therapy is recommended by guidelines, implementation can be variable. We sought to evaluate practice patterns for myeloma bone disease management and to identify opportunities for harmonization.
Methods: An online survey was distributed to clinicians who see patients with multiple myeloma at medical centers affiliated with the Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium. Anonymous responses were collected regarding self-reported demographics, as well as practice patterns regarding preferred antiresorptive agent, dosing, duration of therapy, therapy modifications, vitamin and mineral supplementation, dental restrictions, and management at relapse.
Results: A total of 100 responses were collected from 11 different academic institutions and their community-affiliated sites. Respondents were predominantly physicians (74%) working in an academic setting (77%), with variable time practicing independently and number of myeloma patients seen per year. Most respondents (89%) reported using zoledronic acid as the preferred agent, with every 4 weeks as the most common frequency (for zoledronic acid 70%, denosumab 64%), with most administering therapy for 2 years (72%). Most clinical scenarios did not affect anti-resorptive choice at diagnosis, except for severe renal insufficiency. Dental recommendations were heterogeneous. There was low utilization of biomarkers to guide management decisions.
Conclusion: Our survey suggests that at the time of diagnosis, most clinicians administer appropriate supportive care for myeloma bone disease. Further study is needed to help unify practice patterns in the relapsed setting, when dental care is suboptimal, and when it is appropriate to tailor such therapy.
Related
- Treatment Patterns, Treatment Response, and Survival Outcomes in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Single-Center Real-World Study
- Glaucoma practice patterns in Australia and New Zealand: a binational survey of ophthalmologists
- A comparative study of knowledge, attitude, and practice of rapid trauma survey using traditional and online methods among interns being trained at a rural tertiary health care center
- What's in a name? Mixed connective tissue disease in the UK: a survey of current clinical practice and unmet need.
- Reported practice patterns in the use of local antibiotics for fracture-related infection among SICOT respondents: an international survey.
BibTeX
@article{schmidt2026practice,
title = {{Practice patterns in myeloma bone disease: a multi-center survey}},
author = {Timothy Schmidt and Ryan Gennette and Craig Cole and Aimee Merino and Danai Dima and Malini Surapaneni and Hira Shaikh and Elvira Umyarova and Christopher D’Angelo and Matias Sanchez and Kevin Rakszawski and Natalie Callander and Matthew Pianko and Attaya Suvannasankha},
journal = {Frontiers in Oncology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fonc.2026.1948667},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2026.1948667/full},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Practice patterns in myeloma bone disease: a multi-center survey
AU - Timothy Schmidt
AU - Ryan Gennette
AU - Craig Cole
AU - Aimee Merino
AU - Danai Dima
AU - Malini Surapaneni
AU - Hira Shaikh
AU - Elvira Umyarova
AU - Christopher D’Angelo
AU - Matias Sanchez
AU - Kevin Rakszawski
AU - Natalie Callander
AU - Matthew Pianko
AU - Attaya Suvannasankha
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/14
JO - Frontiers in Oncology
DO - 10.3389/fonc.2026.1948667
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2026.1948667/full
AB - Background: Bone disease is a common manifestation of multiple myeloma. Although anti-resorptive therapy is recommended by guidelines, implementation can be variable. We sought to evaluate practice patterns for myeloma bone disease management and to identify opportunities for harmonization. Methods: An online survey was distributed to clinicians who see patients with multiple myeloma at medical centers affiliated with the Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium. Anonymous responses were collected regarding self-reported demographics, as well as practice patterns regarding preferred antiresorptive agent, dosing, duration of therapy, therapy modifications, vitamin and mineral supplementation, dental restrictions, and management at relapse. Results: A total of 100 responses were collected from 11 different academic institutions and their community-affiliated sites. Respondents were predominantly physicians (74%) working in an academic setting (77%), with variable time practicing independently and number of myeloma patients seen per year. Most respondents (89%) reported using zoledronic acid as the preferred agent, with every 4 weeks as the most common frequency (for zoledronic acid 70%, denosumab 64%), with most administering therapy for 2 years (72%). Most clinical scenarios did not affect anti-resorptive choice at diagnosis, except for severe renal insufficiency. Dental recommendations were heterogeneous. There was low utilization of biomarkers to guide management decisions. Conclusion: Our survey suggests that at the time of diagnosis, most clinicians administer appropriate supportive care for myeloma bone disease. Further study is needed to help unify practice patterns in the relapsed setting, when dental care is suboptimal, and when it is appropriate to tailor such therapy.
SN - 2234-943X
ER -