Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Frontiers in Oncology · October 14, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
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.