We have had an interest in high-risk myeloma for a very long time. In fact, we were the first group to develop treatment strategies based on whether a patient was high-risk or not. We initiated such a trial in 2019, so we had different trials for high-risk and low-risk patients. Our definition of high-risk was by gene expression profiling, the so-called ’70-gene score’, and we found that the patients with good-risk or standard-risk myeloma do extremely well...
We have had an interest in high-risk myeloma for a very long time. In fact, we were the first group to develop treatment strategies based on whether a patient was high-risk or not. We initiated such a trial in 2019, so we had different trials for high-risk and low-risk patients. Our definition of high-risk was by gene expression profiling, the so-called ’70-gene score’, and we found that the patients with good-risk or standard-risk myeloma do extremely well. Conversely, the patients with high-risk myeloma, even with an extensive treatment program, using tandem autologous stem cell transplantation and three drugs as maintenance for three years, still have a poor outcome. Our new trials show some improvement with the addition of daratumumab for high-risk. But overall, high-risk as we define it by gene expression profiling, still remains a significant unmet need. What we so far have not answered is the question of whether the new bispecific antibody therapies and CAR-T cell therapies will make a major impact on the outcome of these patients. We would like to think that they do – we are in the process of developing clinical trials for this high-risk group of patients. But I think the future will have to answer that question, whether upfront novel immune therapies for high-risk myeloma will improve outcomes.