Treatment Strategies for Older Myeloma Patients: History
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

While novel therapies have improved outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM), physicians are calling for greater caution when managing this hematologic malignancy in older patients due to their fragility, which increases their vulnerability to toxic events. Additionally, this patient population may be excluded from clinical trials due to comorbidities, whereby available data are not always applicable in real-word clinical practice.

  • multiple myeloma
  • elderly patients
  • frailty

1. Introduction

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematologic malignancy that typically occurs in older patients. The median age at the time of diagnosis is 69 years, and more than 30% of patients are older than 75 years [1].
Although new therapies have improved median survival, reaching approximately 6 years [2], the available data suggest that age is a major parameter affecting outcome, which worsens decade by decade, reaching about 28.9 months of median overall survival (OS) in patients aged 80 years and older [3]. The impact of age on survival is also highlighted in many major clinical trials, although the selection of patients enrolled in these studies does not totally reflect the characteristics of the real-world population [3][4][5].
In addition to chronological age, other factors such as the incidence and severity of comorbidities, functional impairments, and independence status are strong predictors of life expectancy [6], which is extremely variable in the same age group, thus suggesting that not only chronological age is important, but also health status.
Although the trend in MM research has always been to increase the efficacy of the therapy by combining different drugs (doublets, triplets, and quadruplets), this does not always translate into a benefit, particularly in more frail patients, who are more sensitive to possible adverse toxicities [7].
Furthermore, the efficacy of therapies tends to decrease during the course of the disease, while the proportion of patients receiving therapies at each subsequent line also constantly decreases. In a study published by Yong and colleagues, including 22% of patients over 75 years old, 62% of patients received second-line treatment, and <25% actually received three lines of therapy [8]. This concept was also highlighted by Fonseca e al. in their study, which showed that transplant-ineligible (NTE) patients who received just one line of therapy were significantly older and exhibited a higher incidence of comorbidities [9].
This premise underlines the necessity of choosing the optimal treatment for each older patient according to their characteristics.

2. First-Line Treatment for Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Multiple Myeloma

When selecting the best first-line treatment for older NDMM patients, several factors need to be considered: patient-related factors (e.g., age, frailty status, organ function, comorbidities, patient preference, and social status), disease-related factors (e.g., renal failure, presence of extramedullary disease [EMD], and presence of high-risk cytogenetics), and treatment-related factors (e.g., efficacy, treatment goals, potential AEs, and impact on quality of life; see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Clinical considerations for treatment decision in transplant-ineligible patients. Abbreviations: MM, multiple myeloma.
Defining treatment goals for each older patient is crucial. For fit patients, the aim is to achieve good and long-lasting responses, such as complete response (CR) or minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, using combinations such as triplets or quadruplets. Unlike older fit patients, the main goal in the treatment of intermediate-fit patients is to achieve a balance between efficacy and toxicity, whereas reducing therapy-related toxicities and preserving the best levels of quality of life and independence as long as possible are the key aims for the treatment of frail patients [10][11].
The VISTA trial showed that the bortezomib–melphalan–prednisone (VMP) triplet was superior to the MP doublet in terms of median (m)PFS (24 months vs. 16 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.48) and median (m)OS (56 months vs. 43 months, HR 0.69), even in patients older than 75 years [12]. Peripheral neuropathy is the major limiting toxicity related to bortezomib, which is mostly administered once a week in clinical practice [13].
The FIRST study compared continuous Rd vs. limited-duration Rd (Rd18; 18 months) vs. melphalan–prednisone–thalidomide (MPT), demonstrating a significant advantage of continuous Rd in terms of mPFS (26 months in the Rd vs. 21 in the Rd18 and MPT arms) [14]. An improvement of 10 months in OS in the continuous Rd arm vs. MPT was also reported, without significant differences vs. Rd18 [15].
Over the last few years, the introduction of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (mAb) daratumumab has substantially changed the treatment landscape for NTE NDMM patients. According to the updated ESMO guidelines, the current standards of care are daratumumab–lenalidomide–dexamethasone (D–Rd), daratumumab–VMP (D–VMP), and bortezomib–lenalidomide–dexamethasone (VRd). If these options are not available, VMP or Rd combinations are recommended [16][17].
Both the MAIA (D–Rd vs. Rd) and the ALCYONE (D–VMP vs. VMP) studies led to the approval of daratumumab as the backbone of first-line therapy. D–Rd and D–VMP were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in October 2019 on the basis of the results of these studies. D-Rd was associated with a high overall response rate (ORR) of 93% with a 32% of MRD negativity rate [18][19]. In the subanalysis of the MAIA study, D–Rd, as compared with Rd, was shown to increase PFS, OS, and MRD negativity rates in several subgroups, including patients aged ≥75 years, those with renal failure, and those with ISS stage III [20]. In patients aged ≥75 years, the occurrence of grade 3–4 AEs was similar between the D–Rd and Rd arms (95.5% vs. 95%). The most common AEs were neutropenia (D–Rd 62.4% vs. Rd 41.5%), lymphopenia (D–Rd 21.0% vs. Rd 12.6%), and pneumonia (D–Rd 20.4% vs. Rd 14.5%). Despite this, the discontinuation rate due to treatment-emergent (TE)AEs was lower in the D–Rd than in the Rd arm (7.1% vs. 15.9%). Quality of life (QoL) data also showed a benefit from D–Rd over Rd, particularly in terms of physical functioning, fatigue, and median time of pain relief [21].
The ALCYONE study also yielded higher response and MRD negativity rates in the experimental arm vs. the control arm (ORR 91% vs. 74%; MRD negativity 28% vs. 7%). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs with D–VMP vs. VMP were neutropenia (40% vs. 39%), thrombocytopenia (34% vs. 38%), and infections (23% vs. 15%; with an incidence of pneumonia of 11% vs. 4%) [22].
In a retrospective analysis of the MAIA study on frailty, patients were divided into three categories (fit, intermediate, and frail) using a frailty score [23] that incorporated age, CCI, and ECOG PS evaluation. Fit and intermediate patients had a longer PFS than frail patients, but the PFS benefit from D–Rd vs. Rd was maintained across all the frailty subgroups. The clinical benefit from D–Rd and D–VMP in NTE NDMM patients was not associated with safety issues. Data are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Frailty subgroups and related outcomes in the ALCYONE and MAIA studies.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/cancers15102693


  1. Cronin, K.A.; Scott, S.; Firth, A.U.; Sung, H.; Henley, S.J.; Sherman, R.L.; Siegel, R.L.; Anderson, R.N.; Kohler, B.A.; Benard, V.B.; et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part 1: National cancer statistics. Cancer 2022, 128, 4251–4284.
  2. Rajkumar, S.V. Multiple myeloma: 2022 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management. Am. J. Hematol. 2022, 97, 1086–1107.
  3. Pawlyn, C.; Cairns, D.; Kaiser, M.; Striha, A.; Jones, J.; Shah, V.; Jenner, M.; Drayson, M.; Owen, R.; Gregory, W.; et al. The relative importance of factors predicting outcome for myeloma patients at different ages: Results from 3894 patients in the Myeloma XI trial. Leukemia 2020, 34, 604–612.
  4. Facon, T.; Kumar, S.K.; Plesner, T.; Orlowski, R.Z.; Moreau, P.; Bahlis, N.; Basu, S.; Nahi, H.; Hulin, C.; Quach, H.; et al. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MAIA): Overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 1582–1596.
  5. Durie, B.G.M.; Hoering, A.; Abidi, M.H.; Rajkumar, S.V.; Epstein, J.; Kahanic, S.P.; Thakuri, M.; Reu, F.; Reynolds, C.M.; Sexton, R.; et al. Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017, 389, 519–527.
  6. Walter, L.C.; Covinsky, K.E. Cancer screening in elderly patients: A framework for individualized decision making. JAMA 2001, 285, 2750–2756.
  7. Magarotto, V.; Bringhen, S.; Offidani, M.; Benevolo, G.; Patriarca, F.; Mina, R.; Falcone, A.P.; De Paoli, L.; Pietrantuono, G.; Gentili, S.; et al. Triplet vs doublet lenalidomide-containing regimens for the treatment of elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2016, 127, 1102–1108.
  8. Yong, K.; Delforge, M.; Driessen, C.; Fink, L.; Flinois, A.; Gonzalez-McQuire, S.; Safaei, R.; Karlin, L.; Mateos, M.V.; Raab, M.S.; et al. Multiple myeloma: Patient outcomes in real-world practice. Br. J. Haematol. 2016, 175, 252–264.
  9. Fonseca, R.; Usmani, S.Z.; Mehra, M.; Slavcev, M.; He, J.; Cote, S.; Lam, A.; Ukropec, J.; Maiese, E.M.; Nair, S.; et al. Frontline treatment patterns and attrition rates by subsequent lines of therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. BMC Cancer 2020, 20, 1087.
  10. Larocca, A.; Dold, S.M.; Zweegman, S.; Terpos, E.; Wäsch, R.; D’Agostino, M.; Scheubeck, S.; Goldschmidt, H.; Gay, F.; Cavo, M.; et al. Patient-centered practice in elderly myeloma patients: An overview and consensus from the European Myeloma Network (EMN). Leukemia 2018, 32, 1697–1712.
  11. Salvini, M.; D’Agostino, M.; Bonello, F.; Boccadoro, M.; Bringhen, S. Determining treatment intensity in elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Expert Rev. Anticancer. Ther. 2018, 18, 917–930.
  12. Mateos, M.V.; Richardson, P.G.; Schlag, R.; Khuageva, N.K.; Dimopoulos, M.A.; Shpilberg, O.; Kropff, M.; Spicka, I.; Petrucci, M.T.; Palumbo, A.; et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone compared with melphalan and prednisone in previously untreated multiple myeloma: Updated follow-up and impact of subsequent therapy in the phase III VISTA trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 2259–2266.
  13. Bringhen, S.; Larocca, A.; Rossi, D.; Cavalli, M.; Genuardi, M.; Ria, R.; Gentili, S.; Patriarca, F.; Nozzoli, C.; Levi, A.; et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly bortezomib in multiple myeloma patients. Blood 2010, 116, 4745–4753.
  14. Benboubker, L.; Dimopoulos, M.A.; Dispenzieri, A.; Catalano, J.; Belch, A.R.; Cavo, M.; Pinto, A.; Weisel, K.; Ludwig, H.; Bahlis, N.; et al. Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 906–917.
  15. Facon, T.; Dimopoulos, M.A.; Dispenzieri, A.; Catalano, J.V.; Belch, A.; Cavo, M.; Pinto, A.; Weisel, K.; Ludwig, H.; Bahlis, N.J.; et al. Final analysis of survival outcomes in the phase 3 FIRST trial of up-front treatment for multiple myeloma. Blood 2018, 131, 301–310.
  16. Dimopoulos, M.A.; Moreau, P.; Terpos, E.; Mateos, M.V.; Zweegman, S.; Cook, G.; Delforge, M.; Hájek, R.; Schjesvold, F.; Cavo, M.; et al. Multiple myeloma: EHA-ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 309–322.
  17. Rajkumar, S.V. Multiple myeloma: 2020 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification and management. Am. J. Hematol. 2020, 95, 548–567.
  18. San-Miguel, J.; Avet-Loiseau, H.; Paiva, B.; Kumar, S.; Dimopoulos, M.A.; Facon, T.; Mateos, M.V.; Touzeau, C.; Jakubowiak, A.; Usmani, S.Z.; et al. Sustained minimal residual disease negativity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and the impact of daratumumab in MAIA and ALCYONE. Blood 2022, 139, 492–501.
  19. Cavo, M.; San-Miguel, J.; Usmani, S.Z.; Weisel, K.; Dimopoulos, M.A.; Avet-Loiseau, H.; Paiva, B.; Bahlis, N.J.; Plesner, T.; Hungria, V.; et al. Prognostic value of minimal residual disease negativity in myeloma: Combined analysis of POLLUX, CASTOR, ALCYONE, and MAIA. Blood 2022, 139, 835–844.
  20. Moreau, P.; Facon, T.; Usmani, S.; Bahlis, N.J.; Raje, N.; Plesner, T.; Orlowski, R.Z.; Basu, S.; Nahi, H.; Hulin, C.; et al. Daratumumab Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (D-Rd) Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (Rd) in Transplant-Ineligible Patients (Pts) with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM): Clinical Assessment of Key Subgroups of the Phase 3 Maia Study. . Blood 2022, 140, 7297–7300.
  21. Perrot, A.; Facon, T.; Plesner, T.; Usmani, S.; Kumar, S.K.; Bahlis, N.J.; Hulin, C.; Orlowski, R.Z.; Nahi, H.; Mollee, P.; et al. Health-Related Quality of Life for Frail Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated with Daratumumab, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone: Subgroup Analysis of MAIA Trial. . Blood 2022, 140, 1142–1145.
  22. Mateos, M.V.; Cavo, M.; Blade, J.; Dimopoulos, M.A.; Suzuki, K.; Jakubowiak, A.; Knop, S.; Doyen, C.; Lucio, P.; Nagy, Z.; et al. Overall survival with daratumumab, bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (ALCYONE): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2020, 395, 132–141.
  23. Facon, T.; Cook, G.; Usmani, S.Z.; Hulin, C.; Kumar, S.; Plesner, T.; Touzeau, C.; Bahlis, N.J.; Basu, S.; Nahi, H.; et al. Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Frailty subgroup analysis of MAIA. Leukemia 2022, 36, 1066–1077.
  24. Facon, T.; Kumar, S.; Plesner, T.; Orlowski, R.Z.; Moreau, P.; Bahlis, N.; Basu, S.; Nahi, H.; Hulin, C.; Quach, H.; et al. Daratumumab plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone for Untreated Myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 2104–2115.
  25. Mateos, M.V.; Dimopoulos, M.A.; Cavo, M.; Suzuki, K.; Knop, S.; Doyen, C.; Lucio, P.; Nagy, Z.; Pour, L.; Grosicki, S.; et al. Daratumumab Plus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone Versus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone in Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Frailty Subgroup Analysis of ALCYONE. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021, 21, 785–798.
  26. Bonello, F.; Bringhen, S.; Giuliani, N.; Attucci, I.; Zambello, R.; Ronconi, S.; Vincelli, I.D.; Musolino, C.; Leonardi, G.; Ribolla, R.; et al. Bortezomib-Melphalan-Prednisone (Vmp) vs Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Rd) in Transplant-Ineligible Real-Life Multiple Myeloma Patients: Preliminary Results of the Randomized Phase IV Real MM Trial. In 49 Congresso Nazionale SIE. Società Italiana di Ematologia. Abstract Book; ; 2022; pp. 23–24. Available online: (accessed on 26 April 2023).
  27. Durie, B.G.M.; Hoering, A.; Sexton, R.; Abidi, M.H.; Epstein, J.; Rajkumar, S.V.; Dispenzieri, A.; Kahanic, S.P.; Thakuri, M.C.; Reu, F.J.; et al. Longer term follow-up of the randomized phase III trial SWOG S0777: Bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone vs. lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients (Pts) with previously untreated multiple myeloma without an intent for immediate autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Blood Cancer J. 2020, 10, 53.
  28. Bringhen, S.; D’Agostino, M.; Giuliani, N.; Attucci, I.; Zambello, R.; Ronconi, S.; Vincelli, I.D.; Allegra, A.; Leonardi, G.; Rossi, G.; et al. Bortezomib-Melphalan-Prednisone (VMP) Vs. Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (Rd) in Transplant-Ineligible Real-Life Multiple Myeloma Patients: Updated Results of the Randomized Phase IV Real MM Trial . Updated data presented at the meeting. Blood 2022, 140, 1814–1816.
  29. D’Agostino, M.; Bringhen, S.; Ria, R.; Ciceri, F.; Falcone, A.P.; Michieli, M.; Grasso, M.; Pane, F.; Quaresima, M.; Cattel, F.; et al. Health-related quality of life in transplant-ineligible real-life multiple myeloma patients treated with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (vmp) vs. lenalidomide-dexamethasone (rd). . HemaSphere 2022, 6, 408–409.
  30. O’Donnell, E.K.; Laubach, J.P.; Yee, A.J.; Chen, T.; Huff, C.A.; Basile, F.G.; Wade, P.M.; Paba-Prada, C.E.; Ghobrial, I.M.; Schlossman, R.L.; et al. A phase 2 study of modified lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. Br. J. Haematol. 2018, 182, 222–230.
  31. O’Donnell, E.K.; Laubach, J.P.; Yee, A.J.; Redd, R.; Huff, C.A.; Basile, F.; Wade, P.M.; Paba-Prada, C.E.; Ghobrial, I.M.; Schlossman, R.L.; et al. Updated Results of a Phase 2 Study of Modified Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (RVd-lite) in Transplant-Ineligible Multiple Myeloma. abstract #3178 . Blood 2019, 134.
  32. Fonseca, R.; Facon, T.; Hashim, M.; Nair, S.; He, J.; Ammann, E.; Lam, A.; Wildgust, M.; Kumar, S. Impact of Treatment Sequencing on Overall Survival in Patients with Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Myeloma. Oncologist 2023, oyad053.
  33. Bringhen, S.; D’Agostino, M.; Paris, L.; Ballanti, S.; Pescosta, N.; Spada, S.; Pezzatti, S.; Grasso, M.; Rota-Scalabrini, D.; de Rosa, L.; et al. Lenalidomide-based induction and maintenance in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: Updated results of the EMN01 randomized trial. Haematologica 2020, 105, 1937–1947.
  34. Larocca, A.; Bonello, F.; Gaidano, G.; D’Agostino, M.; Offidani, M.; Cascavilla, N.; Capra, A.; Benevolo, G.; Tosi, P.; Galli, M.; et al. Dose/schedule-adjusted Rd-R vs continuous Rd for elderly, intermediate-fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2021, 137, 3027–3036.
  35. Manier, S.; Corre, J.; Hulin, C.; Laribi, K.; Araujo, C.; Pica, G.-M.; Touzeau, C.; Godmer, P.; Slama, B.; Karlin, L.; et al. A Dexamethasone Sparing-Regimen with Daratumumab and Lenalidomide in Frail Patients with Newly-Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Efficacy and Safety Analysis of the Phase 3 IFM2017-03 Trial. . Blood 2022, 140, 1369–1370.
  36. Cavo, M.; Dhanasiri, S.; De Stefano, V.; Ramírez Payer, A.; Wiesholzer, M.; Tromp, Y.; Perera, M.R.; Richez-Olivier, V.; Gil, M.; Bernasconi, D.; et al. Safety and Survival Outcomes in Patients with Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated with Lenalidomide-Based or Non-Lenalidomide-Based Treatments in the Real-World MM-034 Study. . Blood 2022, 140, 7195–7196.
  37. Stege, C.A.M.; Nasserinejad, K.; van der Spek, E.; Bilgin, Y.M.; Kentos, A.; Sohne, M.; van Kampen, R.J.W.; Ludwig, I.; Thielen, N.; Durdu-Rayman, N.; et al. Ixazomib, Daratumumab, and Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Frail Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: The Hovon 143 Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 2758–2767.
  38. Groen, K.; Stege, C.A.M.; Nasserinejad, K.; de Heer, K.; Van Kampen, R.J.W.; Leijs, M.B.L.; Thielen, N.; Westerman, M.; Wu, K.L.; Ludwig, I.; et al. Ixazomib, Daratumumab and Low Dose Dexamethasone in Intermediate-Fit Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM); Results of Induction Treatment of the Phase II HOVON 143 Study. abstract #80 . Blood 2021, 138.
  39. Coulson, A.B.; Royle, K.L.; Pawlyn, C.; Cairns, D.A.; Hockaday, A.; Bird, J.; Bowcock, S.; Kaiser, M.; De Tute, R.; Rabin, N.; et al. F railty-adjusted therapy i n T ransplant N on- E ligible patients with newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (FiTNEss (UK-MRA Myeloma XIV Trial)): A study protocol for a randomised phase III trial. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e056147.
  40. Orlowski, R.Z.; Goldschmidt, H.; Cavo, M.; Martin, T.G.; Paux, G.; Oprea, C.; Facon, T. Phase III (IMROZ) study design: Isatuximab plus bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), and dexamethasone (d) vs VRd in transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). abstract #TPS8055 . J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36.
  41. A Trial That Compare Two Treatments in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients Not Eligible for Transplant (KRd vs Rd). Available online: (accessed on 9 March 2023).
  42. Usmani, S.Z.; Alonso Alonso, A.; Quach, H.; Koh, Y.; Guenther, A.; Min, C.-K.; Zhou, X.L.; Kaisermann, M.; Mis, L.M.; Williams, D.; et al. DREAMM-9: Phase I Study of Belantamab Mafodotin Plus Standard of Care in Patients with Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma. abstract #2738 . Blood 2021, 138.
  43. Usmani, S.Z.; Terpos, E.; Janowski, W.; Quach, H.; West, S.; Williams, D.; Dettman, E.J.; Ferron-Brady, G.; Luptakova, K.; Gupta, I. DREAMM-9: Phase III study of belantamab mafodotin plus VRd versus VRd alone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TI NDMM). abstract #TPS8556 . J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38.
  44. Krishnan, A.Y.; Manier, S.; Terpos, E.; Usmani, S.; Khan, J.; Pearson, R.; Girgis, S.; Guo, Y.; McAleer, D.; Olyslager, Y.; et al. MajesTEC-7: A Phase 3, Randomized Study of Teclistamab + Daratumumab + Lenalidomide (Tec-DR) Versus Daratumumab + Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone (DRd) in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Who Are Either Ineligible or Not Intended for Autologous Stem Cell Transplant. . Blood 2022, 140, 10148–10149.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service