Multiple myeloma current treatment algorithms.

Introduction

Major changes have occurred in the diagnostic criteria, staging system, response criteria, and treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) in the last decade 1 . The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) diagnostic criteria for MM require 10% or more clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow (and/or a biopsy proven plasmacytoma) plus any one or more myeloma defining events (MDE): end-organ damage (hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency, anemia, or bone lesions) attributable to the underlying plasma-cell disorder, bone marrow clonal plasma cells ≥60%, serum involved to uninvolved free light chain (FLC) ratio ≥100 (provided involved FLC level is ≥100 mg/L), or more than 1 focal lesion (5 mm or more in size) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 2 . The current IMWG staging system for MM incorporates tumor burden and high-risk cytogenetics, and is referred to as the Revised International Staging System 3 . Updated IMWG response criteria include definitions for minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity 4 . These changes in diagnosis, staging, and response assessment have been made necessary by the rapid advances in treatment of the MM, with the arrival of several new drugs (carfilzomib, pomalidomide, daratumumab, elotuzumab, panobinostat, ixazomib, and selinexor). Numerous clinical trials provide data on best practices along the spectrum of the disease. The purpose of this current treatment algorithm is to synthesize the available data in the field and provide an evidence-based approach to the current treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed MM.

Classification and risk stratification

There are four major subtypes of MM that account for more than 80% of patients with the disease. They include trisomic MM, t(11;14) MM, t(4;14) MM, and MM with translocations of t(14;16) or t(14;20) referred to as MAF MM (Table 1 ) 5 . Secondary cytogenetic abnormalities such as deletion 17p, gain 1q, deletion 1p, deletion 13q, or monosomy 13 can occur in any of the primary cytogenetic types of myeloma, and can further modify disease course, response to therapy, and prognosis. Table 1 Molecular cytogenetic classification and risk stratification of multiple myeloma (MM). Cytogenetic abnormality Gene/chromosome (s) affected Risk stratification a Primary cytogenetic abnormality Trisomic MM Trisomies of one or more odd-numbered chromosomes Standard risk t (11;14) MM CCND1 Standard risk t (4;14) MM FGFR3 and MMSET High risk MAF MM High risk t(14;16) C-MAF t(14;20) MAF-B Other Standard risk Secondary cytogenetic abnormality Gain (1q) 1q High risk Del (17p) p53 High risk p53 mutation p53 High risk Other Variable a Presence of any two high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities is considered double-hit MM. Presence of any three or more high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities is considered triple-hit MM.

High-risk MM is defined by the presence of t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), deletion 17p, gain 1q, or p53 mutation 1 . Double-hit MM refers to the presence of any two or more high-risk abnormalities. Triple-hit MM refers to the presence of three or more high-risk abnormalities.

Disease assessment

Bone marrow studies must be performed in all patients and must include fluorescent in situ hybridization or other more sensitive means to detect cytogenetic abnormalities. Whole-body low-dose computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography–CT studies are preferred over conventional skeletal surveys for bone imaging 6 . MRI scans are indicated in patients felt to have clinical smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) to rule out focal bone marrow lesions. In patients who are in CR, MRD assessment by next-generation flow cytometry or next-generation sequencing is recommended 7 , 8 .

Treatment options

Several drugs have shown activity in MM and are available for clinical use. As a result, there are numerous regimens that use two or more of these active drugs available for the treatment of MM in various settings. The major classes include alkylating agents (melphalan, cyclophosphamide) corticosteroids (dexamethasone, prednisone), immunomodulatory drugs (thalidomide, lenalidomide, pomalidomide), and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib). Daratumumab and isatuximab are monoclonal (M) antibodies targeting CD38, and are playing an increasingly important role in the treatment of MM. Other active approved agents include elotuzumab, a M antibody targeting the SLAMF7 antigen; panobinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor; and selinexor, an inhibitor of exportin-1 (XPO1). Elotuzumab, panobinostat, and selinexor do not seem to have significant single-agent activity, but appear to exert their therapeutic effect in combination with other active drugs. Anthracyclines (doxorubicin and liposomal doxorubicin) have minimal single-agent activity in MM. They are used infrequently used in the treatment of MM given availability of other active agents. However, doxorubicin is incorporated into some multi-agent combination regimens for aggressive or refractory MM.

Treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma

The two main factors that drive our approach to newly diagnosed MM are eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and risk stratification. The current algorithms for the treatment of symptomatic newly diagnosed MM based on these two factors is shown in Fig. 1 . In general, eligibility for ASCT is affected by age, performance status, and comorbidities. Modern treatments can produce deep responses, and some patients can achieve MRD negative state. Although MRD negative status is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), it is not the goal of therapy. There are no data from randomized trials that modifying therapy in MRD positive patients in an attempt to make them MRD negative will lead to better outcomes. Ongoing randomized trials are investigating if changing therapy based on MRD results can improve survival in MM. In the absence such data, modifying therapy based on MRD results is not recommended for clinical practice, except young patients with high-risk MM, especially double or triple-hit MM. Fig. 1 Current Treatment Algorithms for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma. Approach to the treatment of newly diagnosed myeloma in transplant-eligible ( a ) and transplant-ineligible ( b ) patients. VRd, Bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone; DRd, daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone; Dara-VRd, daratumumab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone; ASCT, autologous stem cell transplantation.

Initial therapy in patients eligible for transplantation

As outlined in Fig. 1 , patients who candidates for ASCT are treated with 3–4 cycles of induction therapy followed by stem cell harvest. After stem cell harvest, most patients should proceed to ASCT followed by maintenance. However in selected patients who have standard-risk MM, ASCT can be delayed until relapse. Such patients who have deferred ASCT until relapse should resume induction therapy following stem cell harvest, for a few more cycles followed by maintenance.

The preferred initial therapy for patients who are candidates for ASCT is bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (VRd). VRd is a well-tolerated regimen with a long track record. It is associated with high overall and complete response (CR) rates. In a Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) randomized trial, treatment with VRd led to superior PFS and OS compared with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) 9 . A subsequent randomized trial by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome found that the 4-year OS rate with VRd was >80% with or without early ASCT 10 .

An important alternative to VRd in newly diagnosed MM is daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd). DRd has shown significant efficacy in a randomized trial conducted in transplant-ineligible patients, with improved PFS compared with Rd 11 . Based on overall cost, and strength of long-term data, we prefer VRd over DRd for most patients 12 . However, DRd is a suitable alternative for patients with preexisting neuropathy or for patients who have intolerance to VRd. In high-risk patients, especially those with double-hit MM or triple-hit MM, we recommend addition of daratumumab to the standard VRd regimen (Dara-VRd). In a randomized phase II trial, Dara-VRd has shown better and deeper responses compared to VRd 13 . Another quadruplet regimen that has shown promise is daratumumab, bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone (Dara-VTd). In a randomized trial, Dara-VTd was associated with improved PFS, and a trend to better OS compared to bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone (VTd) 14 . Further data from phase III trials are awaited.

We do not recommend carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRd) as initial therapy. In a recent randomized trial by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), there was no significant benefit with KRd over VRd in newly diagnosed patients with standard-risk MM 15 . KRd is more expensive, and is associated with a higher risk of serious cardiac, renal, and pulmonary toxicity than VRd.

In certain settings, the treatment regimens for newly diagnosed MM have to be modified. For example, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone (VCd) is our preferred regimen in patients presenting with acute renal failure due to light-chain cast nephropathy 16 . Similarly, VTd is used instead of VRd as initial therapy in countries where lenalidomide is not approved for frontline therapy 17 . In patients with primary plasma-cell leukemia or significant extramedullary disease, multi-agent combination chemotherapy such as bortezomib/dexamethasone/thalidomide/cisplatin/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/etoposide (VDT-PACE) may be needed initially to achieve rapid disease control 18 .

Initial therapy in patients ineligible for transplantation

The two main options for initial therapy in patients ineligible for ASCT are VRd and DRd (Fig. 1 ). Melphalan-based regimens are no longer recommended due to concerns about stem cell damage, secondary myelodysplastic syndrome, and acute leukemia. VRd has shown improved OS compared with Rd, and is our preferred choice for initial therapy 9 . VRd is administered for ~8–12 cycles, followed by maintenance therapy. In frail elderly patients, a lower dose of lenalidomide and dexamethasone should be used. If therapy with VRd is not possible due to inability to travel for parenteral administration, ixazomib can be considered in place of bortezomib.

The main alternative to VRd for initial therapy in transplant-ineligible patients is DRd. DRd is approved for patients with newly diagnosed MM in the United States based on the results of a randomized trial in which PFS was found to be significantly superior to Rd 11 . MRD negative rates with DRd were also superior. The main disadvantage of DRd, is that unlike VRd where the triplet regimen is only used for a limited duration (8–12 cycles), therapy with DRd requires treatment with all three drugs until disease progression, resulting in a much more expensive and cumbersome regimen in the long term 12 . Subcutaneous availability of daratumumab may reduce the inconvenience but it still retains many of the disadvantages compared to VRd 19 .

Dosage and supportive care considerations

There is a significant risk of peripheral neuropathy with VRd and other bortezomib-containing regimens. This can be minimized by using bortezomib in a once-weekly schedule 20 , 21 , and by administering the drug through subcutaneously 22 . For all regimens, dexamethasone should be used once-weekly (low-dose dexamethasone) 23 . One exception is the first 4 days of therapy in patients with acute light-chain cast nephropathy when dexamethasone can be administered daily, and then switched to once-weekly. In patients who have received prolonged lenalidomide therapy, plerixafor may be needed for adequate stem cell mobilization 24 .

All patients treated with lenalidomide need deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism prophylaxis. Aspirin is adequate for most patients, but patients at higher risk of thrombosis should receive low-molecular weight heparin, warfarin, or direct thrombin inhibitors 25 – 27 . All patients receiving proteasome inhibitors need herpes zoster prophylaxis. We recommend prophylaxis against pneumocystis jiroveci for all patients on dexamethasone. We also recommend levofloxacin daily for the first two cycles in all patients with newly diagnosed MM 28 .

Stem cell transplantation

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT)

ASCT is not curative in MM, but improves median OS by ~12 months 29 – 36 . The treatment-related mortality rate is 1–2%. In ~50% of patients, ASCT can be done on an outpatient basis 37 . The preferred conditioning regimen for ASCT is melphalan, 200 mg/m 2 . As discussed earlier, the early use of ASCT is preferred, but in some patients with standard-risk MM, ASCT can be delayed until first relapse, primarily based on patient choice 38 . Three randomized trials conducted prior to the introduction of the VRd regimen showed that OS was similar whether ASCT is done early (after 3–4 cycles of initial therapy) or delayed (at the time of relapse as salvage therapy) 32 , 39 , 40 . A recent randomized trial using VRd as initial therapy found improved PFS but no difference in OS with early ASCT compared to delayed ASCT at the time of first relapse 10 . Thus, patient and physician preference plays an important role in deciding the timing of ASCT, especially in standard-risk patients. We still prefer early ASCT in most patients since it can be done with low risk, is logistically easier, and provides the longest duration of remission. There is a small risk of therapy-related secondary myelodysplastic syndrome and acute leukemia associated with ASCT.

Tandem transplantation

Tandem (double) ASCT refers to a second planned ASCT after recovery from the first transplantation. The role of tandem ASCT in myeloma is limited. A randomized trial conducted in the United States by the Bone Marrow Transplantation Clinical Trials Network (BMT-CTN) has found no benefit with tandem ASCT 41 . However, a survival benefit has been found in a randomized trial conducted by the European Myeloma Network 42 , 43 . It is likely that the contradictory outcomes in these trials reflect access and availability of new treatment options in the salvage setting. In the US, where multiple options for salvage therapy are available, there seems to be no benefit with tandem ASCT. At present, outside of a clinical trial setting, we consider tandem ASCT only in selected young patients with del 17p.

Allogeneic transplantation

Allogeneic transplantation remains investigational in MM. Its use should be restricted primarily to clinical trials, and to young patients (<60 years of age) with high-risk MM that is in first relapse. These patients must be counseled about the high treatment-related mortality rate associated with the procedure and the lack of definitive proof of benefit.

Consolidation therapy

A randomized trial by the BMT-CTN found no benefit with administering consolidation therapy post ASCT 41 . As a result, we do not recommend additional cycles of VRd chemotherapy or other forms of consolidation following ASCT. Post ASCT, we prefer to move straight to maintenance therapy in the absence of significant residual disease.

Maintenance therapy

Lenalidomide has been shown to improve PFS and OS following ASCT, and is the recommended form of maintenance for most patients 33 , 44 – 48 . Based on the results of the SWOG trial we also recommend lenalidomide maintenance to patients who have not undergone ASCT, but have completed initial therapy with a triplet such as VRd 9 . There is a two- to threefold increase in the risk of second cancers, including therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome, with lenalidomide and this must be discussed with the patient 44 , 45 .

In high-risk patients, bortezomib-based maintenance is preferable. In one randomized trial, bortezomib administered every other week as posttransplant maintenance produced better OS than thalidomide maintenance 46 . Bortezomib can be given alone given every other week, or as part of low-intensity VRd, to combine the beneficial effects of bortezomib and lenalidomide 49 . In patients unable to access or tolerate bortezomib, ixazomib is a reasonable alternative that has shown benefit in a placebo controlled randomized trial 50 .

A present data on optimal duration of maintenance are lacking. Long-term indefinite maintenance is associated with cost, toxicity, and inconvenience. Many patients can benefit from a drug-free interval. Currently an ECOG randomized trial is comparing lenalidomide maintenance given until progression versus a limited duration of 2 years. Trials are also examining if the duration of maintenance can be modified based on MRD results. At present we continue maintenance until progression in the absence of toxicity.

Treatment of relapsed MM

Almost all patients with MM eventually relapse. In fact, MM is a disease characterized by multiple remissions and relapses. With modern therapy, the first relapse of MM occurs after ~3–4 years following initial diagnosis. Each subsequent remission is of shorter duration. Many patients with MM receive five or more lines of therapy in a sequential manner over several years. The remission duration in relapsed MM decreases with each regimen 51 . The choice of treatment at each relapse is affected by many factors. These include the timing of the relapse, response to prior therapy, aggressiveness of the relapse, and performance status. Patients eligible for ASCT should be considered for transplantation if they had elected to delay the procedure, or if they achieved excellent remission duration with the first ASCT, defined as a remission of 36 months or longer with maintenance.

In general, a triplet regimen is preferred. At each relapse, a regimen that contains at least two new drugs that the patient is not refractory to should be considered. Our algorithm for the treatment of relapsed MM is given in Fig. 2 . These recommendations are based on the results of several major randomized trials 52 – 62 . Unfortunately in many of these trials, lenalidomide-containing regimens were tested mainly in patient populations who were not previously exposed to lenalidomide. But in current clinical practice most patients have received lenalidomide as initial therapy, which limits the generalizability of these data to some extent. Fig. 2 Current Treatment Algorithms for Relapsed Myeloma. Approach to the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma in first relapse ( a ) and second or higher relapse ( b ). DRd daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone; KRd carfilozomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone; IRd ixazomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone; ERd elotuzumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone; DVd daratumumab, bortezomib, dexamethasone; DPd daratumumab, pomalidomide, dexamethasone; KPd carfilzomib, pomalidomide, dexamethasone; VCd bortezomib, cyclophosphamide; DKd daratumumab, carfilzomib, dexamethasone; IPd ixazomib, pomalidomide, dexamethasone.

Treatment of first relapse

Patients who are eligible for ASCT should consider ASCT as salvage therapy at first relapse if they have never had a transplant before, or if they have had a prolonged remission with the first ASCT. If relapse occurs more than 6 months after stopping all therapy, the initial treatment regimen that successfully controlled the MM initially can be reinstituted when possible. For all other patients, the strategy for therapy at first relapse is described below. Treatment for relapsed MM is typically continued until disease progression. However, based on tolerability and response, we do consider increasing the interval between cycles, as well as treatment-free intervals. In general, triplet regimens are preferred, but in some elderly frail patients with indolent relapse, doublet regimens such as pomalidomide, dexamethasone can be considered.

At first relapse, for patients who are not refractory to lenalidomide, multiple triplet regimens can be considered, including DRd, KRd, ixazomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (IRd), and elotuzumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone. Each of these regimens has shown superiority over Rd in randomized trials 53 , 55 , 56 , 63 . However, none of them have been compared head-to-head with each other to determine the most effective combination for clinical practice 64 . In the absence of such data, we have to rely on non-randomized comparisons of efficacy and tolerability. Our preferred option is DRd, since it has produced the best reduction in risk of progression compared to Rd, and based on its tolerability. Daratumumab is also available now as a subcutaneous formulation, which reduces infusion-related side effects and reduces the time for administration. KRd is our preferred alternative if daratumumab is not available, or if the patient has been previously treated with daratumumab. For patients who are frail, oral IRd would be a reasonable first choice for relapse.

In patients who are refractory to lenalidomide, options for therapy at first relapse consist of several pomalidomide-based or bortezomib-based combinations. Pomalidomide-based combinations include daratumumab, pomalidomide, dexamethasone, carfilzomib, pomalidomide, dexamethasone (KPd), isatuximab, pomalidomide, dexamethasone, KPd, and elotuzumab, pomalidomide, dexamethasone 62 , 65 – 67 . Bortezomib-based combinations include daratumumab, bortezomib, dexamethasone (DVd), VCd, and bortezomib, pomalidomide, dexamethasone 57 , 68 , 69 . Daratumumab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone can also be considered. Unfortunately none of these regimens have been compared head-to-head in randomized trials. Our preferred choice based on non-randomized comparisons of efficacy data is DVd. However, in patients who have been previously treated with daratumumab, KPd would be our preferred option. Any of the other regimens would also be reasonable alternatives depending on availability and comorbidities. As in newly diagnosed MM, VRd and VTd are also active regimens available for use in relapsed disease 70 , 71 .

Although patients refractory to a drug are likely to be refractory to different drug in the same class, two important exceptions do exist. Pomalidomide has clinical activity in patients who are refractory to lenalidomide 72 , and carfilzomib has activity in patients who are refractory to bortezomib 73 . Carfilzomib is typically administered twice-weekly at a dose of 27 mg/m 2 , but a once-weekly schedule of 56–70 mg/m 2 may be equally effective and safe, and more convenient 74 . Carfilzomib has a lower risk of neurotoxicity than bortezomib, but ~5% of patients can experience serious cardiac side effects.

Treatment of second and subsequent relapses

The algorithm for second and subsequent relapses is given in Fig. 2 . At each relapse, any of the regimens that were mentioned for use in first relapse can be considered, with the goal of having at least two new drugs that the patient is not refractory two, and preferably from a different drug class. In many instances this may mean the necessity of adding a M antibody to one of the triplets to create a quadruplet regimen. Importantly, alkylator-containing regimens must be considered at this stage. Additional options for second or higher relapses include adding panobinostat to a proteasome-inhibitor containing regimen 58 , or using a selinexor-containing regimen such as selinexor, bortezomib, dexamethasone 75 , 76 . Bendamustine- or anthracycline-containing regimens are used in refractory settings 77 , 78 or the addition of panobinostat to a proteasome-inhibitor containing regimen 58 . For young high-risk patients with a suitable donor, allogeneic transplantation is an option as well 79 .

Venetoclax is not approved for use in MM, but is commercially available, and appears to have single-agent activity in patients with t(11;14) subtype of MM 80 . However, the results of a recent randomized trial found significantly higher mortality with venetoclax in relapsed myeloma despite producing deeper responses and better PFS 81 . Therefore, venetoclax is best considered investigational, and its use should be restricted to patients with t(11;14) who have relapsed disease.

Each remission is likely to be shorter than the previous one. However, with careful analysis of the various options and combinations possible, we can induce remissions multiple times with creative strategies, provided the patient remains in good performance status and is willing and interested in continuing therapy 82 . One strategy we have used in selected patients is one to two cycles of a multi-drug regimen such as VDT-PACE to induce a remission, and then try and maintain it with a more manageable triplet regimen. At each step opportunities for clinical trials may open up and should be considered. Allogeneic transplantation can be considered in selected young patients with relapsed or refractory MM in whom a suitable donor cells are available.

Investigational treatment approaches

Several promising treatments are under investigation for MM. One of the most exciting options is chimeric antigen receptor T cells targeting B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) such as bb2121 83 . In studies so far more than 80% of patients appear to respond, with median response duration of ~12 months. Another promising treatment that has been recently approved in the United States is belantamab mafodotin, a humanized anti-BCMA antibody that is conjugated to monomethyl auristatin-F, a microtubule disrupting agent 84 . A third promising new strategy is the use of bispecific T-cell engager, such as AMG 701 85 , 86 . Cereblon E3 ligase modulators also appear promising 87 .

Treatment of SMM

SMM is defined by the presence of a serum M protein of ≥3 g/dl (or urine M protein ≥500 mg/24 h) and/or 10–60% BMPCs with no evidence of end-organ damage or other MDE (Table 1 ) 2 , 88 . SMM is a clinically defined heterogeneous entity with some patients having biological premalignancy and some with biologic malignancy. Thus some patients behave like M gammopathy of undetermined significance with very low rate of progression (low-risk SMM), while others develop clinical symptoms and end-organ damage within a few years (high-risk SMM) 89 . Although no single pathologic or molecular feature that reliably can be used to distinguish these two groups of patients, we can use a combination of factors to differentiate the two groups (Table 2 ) 90 . In addition, patients with t(4;14), gain 1q, and del(17p) are at high risk of progression 91 , 92 . Table 2 Risk stratification of smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). High-risk SMM Any 2–3 of the following high-risk factors: Serum monoclonal protein >2 gm/dL Serum free light-chain ratio (involved/uninvolved) >20 Bone marrow plasma cells >20% Intermediate-risk SMM Any 1 high-risk factor Low-risk SMM No high-risk factor

The approach to treatment of SMM is shown on Fig. 3 . High-risk patients should be offered therapy with lenalidomide or Rd, or enrollment in a clinical trial. In contrast, patients with low-risk SMM should be observed without therapy every 3–4 months, on an indefinite basis. If during follow up, low-risk SMM patients develop an evolving change in M protein level (defined as 10% increase in M protein within the first 6 months of diagnosis if M-protein 3 g/dl and/or 25% increase in M protein within the first 12 months, with a minimum required increase of 0.5 gm/dl) accompanied by an evolving change in hemoglobin (defined as 0.5 g/dl or greater decrease within 12 months of diagnosis), treatment for MM should be considered according to Fig. 1 or 3 . These recommendations are based on data showing that such increase is associated with >90% risk of progression within 2 years 93 Fig. 3 Approach to the management of smoldering multiple myeloma. SMM smoldering multiple myeloma, MM multiple myeloma, Rd lenalidomide plus dexamethasone.

Therapy for high-risk SMM is recommended based on the results of two randomized trials. The first one conducted in Spain found improved PFS and OS with Rd compared with observation in patients with high-risk SMM 94 . In a subsequent ECOG trial, a significant improvement in time to end-organ damage was found with lenalidomide compared with observation 95 . Further studies are comparing a preventive approach (lenalidomide or Rd) as we recommend with treatment with a triplet as in newly diagnosed MM 96 .

Bisphosphonates have been studied in SMM in an attempt to delay bone disease. In a randomized trial, a reduction in skeletal-related events (SRE) has been seen with pamidronate (60–90 mg once a month for 12 months) compared with observation 97 . In a separate randomized trial, zoledronic acid (4 mg once a month for 12 months) reduced SREs compared to versus observation 98 . We feel once-yearly bisphosphonate used for the treatment of osteoporosis is appropriate for most low-risk SMM, but based on data from these two randomized trials, more frequent dosing every 3–4 months can be considered for selected high-risk SMM patients.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

Supported in part by Grants CA107476, CA168762, and CA186781 from the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.

Conflict of interest

S.K. reports consultancy (BMS/Celgene, Takeda, and Janssen), and research funding (BMS/Celgene, Takeda, Novartis, AbbVie, Janssen, and Amgen). The other author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

1. Rajkumar SV Multiple myeloma: 2020 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification and management Am. J. Hematol. 2020 95 548 67 10.1002/ajh.25791 32212178

2. Rajkumar SV International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol. 2014 15 e538 e548 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5 25439696

3. Palumbo A Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2015 33 2863 2869 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.2267 PMC4846284 26240224

4. Kumar S International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol. 2016 17 e328 e346 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6 27511158

5. Kumar S Rajkumar SV The multiple myelomas—current concepts in cytogenetic classification and therapy Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2018 15 409 21 10.1038/s41571-018-0018-y 29686421

6. Hillengass J International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 e302 e312 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30309-2 31162104

7. Flores-Montero J Next generation flow (NGF) for highly sensitive and standardized detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma Leukemia 2017 31 2094 2103 10.1038/leu.2017.29 28104919 PMC5629369

8. Martinez-Lopez J Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma Blood 2014 123 3073 3079 10.1182/blood-2014-01-550020 24646471 PMC4023416

9. Durie BGM Bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone vs. lenalidomide and dexamethasone induction followed by lenalidomide and dexamethasone maintenance in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem cell transplant: results of the Randomised Phase III SWOG Trial S0777 Lancet 2017 389 519 527 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31594-X 28017406 PMC5546834

10. Attal M Autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma in the era of new drugs: a phase III study of the Intergroupe Francophone Du Myelome (IFM/DFCI 2009 Trial) Blood 2015 126 391

11. Facon T Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for untreated myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 380 2104 2115 31141632 10.1056/NEJMoa1817249 PMC10045721

12. Kapoor P Rajkumar SV MAIA under the microscope—bringing trial design into focus Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2019 16 339 40 30850718 10.1038/s41571-019-0198-0

13. Voorhees PM Daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, & dexamethasone for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: GRIFFIN Blood 2020 136 936 945 32325490 10.1182/blood.2020005288 PMC7441167

14. Moreau P Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study Lancet 2019 394 29 38 31171419 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31240-1

15. Kumar, S. K. et al. Carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (E1A11): a multicenter, open label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30452-6 (2020). 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30452-6 PMC7591827 32866432

16. Burnette BL Leung N Rajkumar SV Renal improvement in myeloma with bortezomib plus plasma exchange N. Engl. J. Med. 2011 364 2365 2366 21675906 10.1056/NEJMc1101834

17. Moreau, P. et al. Bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD) is superior to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with de novo multiple myeloma. Results of the prospective IFM 2013-04 trial. Proc. ASH Annual Meeting (2015).

18. Barlogie B Incorporating bortezomib into upfront treatment for multiple myeloma: early results of total therapy 3 Br. J. Haematol. 2007 138 176 85 17593024 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06639.x

19. Mateos MV Subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (COLUMBA): a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Haematol. 2020 7 e370 e380 32213342 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30070-3

20. Mateos MV Oriol A Martinez-Lopez J Bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (VMP) versus bortezomib/thalidomide/prednisone (VTP) as induction therapy followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib/thalidomide (VT) versus bortezomib/prednisone (VP): a randomised trial in elderly untreated patients with multiple myeloma older than 65 years Lancet Oncol. 2010 11 934 941 20739218 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70187-X

21. Palumbo A Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma: a randomized controlled trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2010 28 5101 5109 20940200 10.1200/JCO.2010.29.8216

22. Moreau P Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study Lancet Oncol. 2011 12 431 40 21507715 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70081-X

23. Rajkumar SV Lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised controlled trial Lancet Oncol. 2010 11 29 37 19853510 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70284-0 PMC3042271

24. Kumar S Mobilization in myeloma revisited: IMWG consensus perspectives on stem cell collection following initial therapy with thalidomide-, lenalidomide-, or bortezomib-containing regimens Blood 2009 114 1729 1735 19561323 10.1182/blood-2009-04-205013

25. Palumbo A Aspirin, warfarin, or enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in patients with multiple myeloma treated with thalidomide: a phase III, open-label, randomized trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 29 986 993 21282540 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6844

26. Larocca A Aspirin or enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide Blood 2011 119 933 939 21835953 10.1182/blood-2011-03-344333

27. Palumbo A Prevention of thalidomide- and lenalidomide-associated thrombosis in myeloma Leukemia 2008 22 414 423 18094721 10.1038/sj.leu.2405062

28. Drayson MT Levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (TEAMM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 1760 72 31668592 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6 PMC6891230

29. Attal M A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Francais du Myelome N. Engl. J. Med. 1996 335 91 97 8649495 10.1056/NEJM199607113350204

30. Child JA High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2003 348 1875 83 10.1056/NEJMoa022340 12736280

31. Fermand JP High-dose therapy and autologous blood stem-cell transplantation compared with conventional treatment in myeloma patients aged 55 to 65 years: long-term results of a randomized control trial from the Group Myelome-Autogreffe J. Clin. Oncol. 2005 23 9227 33 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.0551 16275936

32. Barlogie B Standard chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemoradiotherapy for multiple myeloma: final results of phase III US Intergroup Trial S9321 J. Clin. Oncol. 2006 24 929 936 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.5807 16432076

33. Palumbo A Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2014 371 895 905 10.1056/NEJMoa1402888 25184862

34. Gay F Chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol. 2015 16 1617 1629 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00389-7 26596670

35. Cavo M Autologous stem cell transplantation versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: second interim analysis of the phase 3 EMN02/HO95 study Blood 2017 130 397 10.1182/blood-2017-01-763219 28576879 PMC5533204

36. Attal M Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2017 376 1311 1320 10.1056/NEJMoa1611750 28379796 PMC6201242

37. Gertz MA Autologous stem cell transplantation in 716 patients with multiple myeloma: low treatment-related mortality, feasibility of outpatient transplantation, and impact of a multidisciplinary quality initiative Mayo Clin. Proc. 2008 83 1131 1135 10.4065/83.10.1131 18828972

38. Kumar SK Buadi FK Rajkumar SV Pros and cons of frontline autologous transplant in multiple myeloma: the debate over timing Blood 2019 133 652 659 10.1182/blood-2018-08-825349 30587528

39. Fermand JP High-dose therapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: up-front or rescue treatment? Results of a multicenter sequential randomized clinical trial Blood 1998 92 3131 3136 10.1182/blood.V92.9.3131 9787148

40. Facon T Front-line or rescue autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) following a first course of high dose melphalan (HDM) in multiple myeloma (MM). Preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial (CIAM) protocol Blood 1996 88 685a

41. Stadtmauer, E. A. et al. Comparison of autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT), bortezomib, lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone (RVD) consolidation with len maintenance (ACM), tandem autohct with len maintenance (TAM) and autohct with len maintenance (AM) for up-front treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM): primary results from the randomized phase III trial of the blood and marrow transplant clinical trials network (BMT CTN 0702-StaMINA Trial). Blood 2016;128:LBA-1-LBA-1.

42. Cavo M Double autologous stem cell transplantation significantly prolongs progression-free survival and overall survival in comparison with single autotransplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an analysis of phase 3 EMN02/HO95 study Blood 2017 130 401

43. Cavo M Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, with or without bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone consolidation therapy, and lenalidomide maintenance for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (EMN02/HO95): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study Lancet Haematol. 2020 7 e456 e468 32359506 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5

44. Attal M Lenalidomide maintenance after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2012 366 1782 1791 22571202 10.1056/NEJMoa1114138

45. McCarthy PL Lenalidomide after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2012 366 1770 1781 22571201 10.1056/NEJMoa1114083 PMC3744390

46. Sonneveld P Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/ GMMG-HD4 trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2012 30 2946 2955 22802322 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.6820

47. Palumbo A Continuous lenalidomide treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2012 366 1759 1769 22571200 10.1056/NEJMoa1112704

48. Benboubker L Lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2014 371 906 917 25184863 10.1056/NEJMoa1402551

49. Nooka AK Consolidation and maintenance therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVD) in high-risk myeloma patients Leukemia 2014 28 690 693 10.1038/leu.2013.335 24220275

50. Dimopoulos MA Oral ixazomib maintenance following autologous stem cell transplantation (TOURMALINE-MM3): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial Lancet 2019 393 253 264 30545780 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33003-4

51. Kumar SK Clinical course of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma Mayo Clin. Proc. 2004 79 867 874 15244382 10.4065/79.7.867

52. Lonial S Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2015 373 621 631 26035255 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654

53. Stewart AK Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2015 372 142 152 25482145 10.1056/NEJMoa1411321

54. Siegel DS Improvement in overall survival with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 728 734 29341834 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.5032

55. Moreau P Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2016 374 1621 1634 27119237 10.1056/NEJMoa1516282

56. Dimopoulos MA Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2016 375 1319 1331 27705267 10.1056/NEJMoa1607751

57. Palumbo A Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2016 375 754 766 27557302 10.1056/NEJMoa1606038

58. San-Miguel MDJF Hungria VTM Yoon MDS Randomized phase 3 trial of the deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol. 2014 15 1195 1206 25242045 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70440-1

59. San Miguel J Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol. 2013 14 1055 1066 24007748 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70380-2

60. Dimopoulos MA Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study Lancet Oncol. 2016 17 27 38 26671818 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00464-7

61. Dimopoulos MA Carfilzomib or bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): an interim overall survival analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol. 2017 18 1327 1337 28843768 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30578-8

62. Attal M Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (ICARIA-MM): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study Lancet 2019 394 2096 2107 31735560 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32556-5

63. Dimopoulos MA Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: ELOQUENT-2 follow-up and post-hoc analyses on progression-free survival and tumour growth Br. J. Haematol. 2017 178 896 905 28677826 10.1111/bjh.14787 PMC6084289

64. Rajkumar SV Kyle RA Progress in myeloma—a monoclonal breakthrough N. Engl. J. Med. 2016 375 1390 1392 27705251 10.1056/NEJMe1609835

65. Chari A Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma Blood 2017 130 974 981 28637662 10.1182/blood-2017-05-785246 PMC5570682

66. Bringhen S Once-weekly carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory myeloma: a phase I/II study Leukemia 2018 32 1803 1807 29479061 10.1038/s41375-018-0024-1

67. Dimopoulos MA Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 379 1811 1822 30403938 10.1056/NEJMoa1805762

68. Kropff M Bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone with or without continuous low-dose oral cyclophosphamide for primary refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomized phase III study Ann. Hematol. 2017 96 1857 1866 28905189 10.1007/s00277-017-3065-z

69. Richardson PG Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 781 794 31097405 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30152-4

70. Pineda-Roman M VTD combination therapy with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone is highly effective in advanced and refractory multiple myeloma Leukemia 2008 22 1419 1427 10.1038/leu.2008.99 18432260 PMC3664925

71. Richardson PG Multicenter, phase I, dose-escalation trial of lenalidomide plus bortezomib for relapsed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2009 27 5713 5719 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.2679 19786667 PMC2799050

72. Richardson PG Pomalidomide alone or in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 2 study Blood 2014 123 1826 1832 10.1182/blood-2013-11-538835 24421329 PMC3962162

73. Siegel DS A phase 2 study of single-agent carfilzomib (PX-171-003-A1) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma Blood 2012 120 2817 2825 10.1182/blood-2012-05-425934 22833546 PMC4123387

74. Bringhen S Once-weekly versus twice-weekly carfilzomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a pooled analysis of two phase I/II studies Haematologica 2019 104 1640 1647 10.3324/haematol.2018.208272 30733270 PMC6669142

75. Chari A Oral selinexor-dexamethasone for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 381 727 738 10.1056/NEJMoa1903455 31433920

76. Dimopoulos M. A., et al. Weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) versus twice weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after one to three prior therapies: initial results of the phase III BOSTON study. Proc. ASCO Annual Meeting Abstracts , A8501(2020).

77. Mey UJ Bendamustine, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (BRd) has high activity as 2(nd) -line therapy for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma - a phase II trial Br. J. Haematol. 2017 176 770 82 10.1111/bjh.14481 27983764

78. Rodon P Phase II study of bendamustine, bortezomib and dexamethasone as second-line treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma: the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome 2009-01 trial Haematologica 2015 100 e56 e59 10.3324/haematol.2014.110890 25398832 PMC4803137

79. Laubach J Management of relapsed multiple myeloma: recommendations of the International Myeloma Working Group Leukemia 2016 30 1005 1017 10.1038/leu.2015.356 26710887

80. Kumar S Efficacy of venetoclax as targeted therapy for relapsed/refractory t(11;14) multiple myeloma Blood 2017 130 2401 2409 29018077 10.1182/blood-2017-06-788786

81. Kumar S Rajkumar SV Surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trials: a reality check Lancet 2019 394 281 283 31354129 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31711-8

82. Rajan AM Buadi FK Rajkumar V Effective use of panobinostat in combination with other active agents in myeloma in a novel five-drug combination: case report and interesting observations Am. J. Hematol. 2016 91 E5 E6 26572926 10.1002/ajh.24244 PMC4724346

83. Raje N Anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy bb2121 in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 380 1726 1737 31042825 10.1056/NEJMoa1817226 PMC8202968

84. Lonial S Belantamab mafodotin for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-2): a two-arm, randomised, open-label, phase 2 study Lancet Oncol. 2020 21 207 221 31859245 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30788-0

85. Topp MS Anti-B-cell maturation antigen BiTE molecule AMG 420 induces responses in multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 775 783 31895611 10.1200/JCO.19.02657

86. Kumar S Rajkumar SV BiTEing the tumor J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 2077 2079 32374643 10.1200/JCO.20.00223

87. Bjorklund CC Iberdomide (CC-220) is a potent cereblon E3 ligase modulator with antitumor and immunostimulatory activities in lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma cells with dysregulated CRBN Leukemia 2020 34 1197 1201 31719682 10.1038/s41375-019-0620-8 PMC7214241

88. Kyle RA Clinical course and prognosis of smoldering (Asymptomatic) multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2007 356 2582 2590 17582068 10.1056/NEJMoa070389

89. Rajkumar SV Landgren O Mateos MV Smoldering multiple myeloma Blood 2015 125 3069 3075 25838344 10.1182/blood-2014-09-568899 PMC4432003

90. Lakshman A Risk stratification of smoldering multiple myeloma incorporating revised IMWG diagnostic criteria Blood Cancer J. 2018 8 59 29895887 10.1038/s41408-018-0077-4 PMC5997745

91. Rajkumar SV Impact of primary molecular cytogenetic abnormalities and risk of progression in smoldering multiple myeloma Leukemia 2013 27 1738 1744 23515097 10.1038/leu.2013.86 PMC3773463

92. Neben K Progression in smoldering myeloma is independently determined by the chromosomal abnormalities del(17p), t(4;14), gain 1q, hyperdiploidy, and tumor load J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2013 31 4325 4332 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.4923 24145347

93. Ravi P Evolving changes in disease biomarkers and risk of early progression in smoldering multiple myeloma Blood Cancer J. 2016 6 e454 27471870 10.1038/bcj.2016.65 PMC5030386

94. Mateos M-V Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2013 369 438 447 23902483 10.1056/NEJMoa1300439

95. Lonial S Randomized trial of lenalidomide versus observation in smoldering multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 1126 1137 31652094 10.1200/JCO.19.01740 PMC7145586

96. Lonial, S., Dhodapkar, M. V., Rajkumar, S. V. Smoldering myeloma and the art of war. J. Clin. Oncol . 10.1200/JCO.20.00875 (2020). 10.1200/JCO.20.00875 32463739

97. D’Arena G Pamidronate versus observation in asymptomatic myeloma: final results with long-term follow-up of a randomized study Leuk. Lymphoma 2011 52 771 775 21299465 10.3109/10428194.2011.553000

98. Musto P A multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing zoledronic acid versus observation in patients with asymptomatic myeloma Cancer 2008 113 1588 1595 18683218 10.1002/cncr.23783