Okay. I think this paper was very important, because it demonstrates something that we have seen outside clinical trials, in the clinical practice, or in small clinical trials. And is the message that the value of MRD is very much associated to the concept of sustained MRD. And this is not novel, because in the past, for complete response, we asked always to have another evaluation of the negative immunofixation, in other words, to confirm the complete response...
Okay. I think this paper was very important, because it demonstrates something that we have seen outside clinical trials, in the clinical practice, or in small clinical trials. And is the message that the value of MRD is very much associated to the concept of sustained MRD. And this is not novel, because in the past, for complete response, we asked always to have another evaluation of the negative immunofixation, in other words, to confirm the complete response.
The same apply to MRD. And why this is particularly applied for the MRD negative cases, because if you have MRD positive cells, you have residual cells. But on the MRD negative, there are some pitfalls. Probably the bone marrow was hemo-diluted, or the bone marrow was not representative, because as you know, the bone marrow infiltration in myeloma is patchy and probably the sample does not go into the right area. For this reason, we need to confirm and to demonstrate this sustained MRD negativity at six or 12 months.