Differential Risks for Multiple Myeloma in New York City Neighborhoods
Posted: Monday, August 17, 2020
Minority populations in New York City (NYC) neighborhoods have poverty-related factors that may be associated with the occurrence and mortality of multiple myeloma, according to a study in the Annals of Epidemiology. According to Nina A. Bickell, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine, New York, and colleagues, “The results highlight the need for providers in ‘hotspot’ areas to be aware of the increased multiple myeloma risk in their patient populations [as well as] public health policies in high-risk neighborhoods to address health-care access challenges, ensure appropriate treatments, and encourage healthy lifestyles.”
The authors collected data on multiple myeloma occurrence and mortality rates in 34 neighborhoods in NYC from various public databases. Information on ethnic backgrounds was collected from the 2010 Census. Income and housing data were acquired from previous public surveys. Furthermore, environmental data were acquired from the NYC Environmental and Health Data Portal. The authors compared the data from NYC with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-13 areas, which represent multiple regions and populations throughout the United States.
The investigators revealed the rate of incidence was higher in NYC than in the SEER-13 populations (average annual percentage change difference, −1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −2.3 to −0.1). Although there was no spatial autocorrelation of incidence rates, the regional incidence rates of multiple myeloma per 100,000 people ranged from 5.3 in Greenpoint to 15.3 in Southeast Queens. Additionally, mortality rates ranged from 1.3 per 100,000 people in Flushing/Clearview to 4.7 in Central Harlem. Further analysis revealed multiple myeloma occurrence to be doubled in the Black population compared with the White population in data from both SEER-13 (rate ratio = 2.27; 95% CI = 2.22–2.32) and NYC (rate ratio = 2.11; 95% CI = 2.03–2.20).
Disclosure: The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
