Table 2. RR of developing multiple myeloma by lag between sampling and diagnosis.
MM on follow-up | Healthy on follow-up | RR | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cases with lag >24 months: | ||||
IFA lytic | ||||
No | 267 | 1288 | 1 | |
Yes | 37 | 221 | 0.8 | (0.5–1.2) |
IFA latent | ||||
No | 302 | 1498 | 1 | |
Yes | 2 | 11 | 0.9 | (0.1–4.2) |
Cases with <median lag (121 months) | ||||
IFA lytic | ||||
No | 144 | 668 | 1 | |
Yes | 20 | 143 | 0.6 | (0.4–1.1) |
IFA latent | ||||
No | 163 | 798 | 1 | |
Yes | 1 | 13 | 0.4 | (0.0–2.6) |
Cases with at least median lag (121 months) | ||||
IFA lytic | ||||
No | 146 | 725 | 1 | |
Yes | 19 | 95 | 1.0 | (0.5–1.7) |
IFA latent | ||||
No | 164 | 817 | 1 | |
Yes | 1 | 3 | 1.7 | (0.0–2.1) |
RR=relative risk; MM=multiple myeloma; CI=confidence interval; IFA=immunofluorescence assay.
Method: exact conditional logistic regression, adjustment for freeze–thawing.