I might say that the big takeaway is that it is a controversial issue. I think that all the speakers beautifully summarized this point, that we gained some success, but there is a lot of work to be done yet, currently ongoing, so many answers are not there. But I use the words of Vincent Rajkumar who said, anyway we have to make a point and to stay on what we have now so we cannot always going on saying “until” we will not reach the perfection, we are not doing anything...
I might say that the big takeaway is that it is a controversial issue. I think that all the speakers beautifully summarized this point, that we gained some success, but there is a lot of work to be done yet, currently ongoing, so many answers are not there. But I use the words of Vincent Rajkumar who said, anyway we have to make a point and to stay on what we have now so we cannot always going on saying “until” we will not reach the perfection, we are not doing anything. So the most controversial issue is the risk definition of smoldering multiple myeloma, the second point is what is happening to those patients after they have been treated for smoldering multiple myeloma – can they be included in clinical trials, yes, no? With which progression, biochemical or clinical progression? And of course the third controversial point is what is the goal of the treatment of smoldering multiple myeloma patients, whether it is to delay progression to active myeloma or to try to reach cure. This is again, another open question, so I think that all these points were touched and summarized, and of course there is still open questions ongoing but at least some of them were somehow agreed between the speakers.