Multiple Myeloma · Web of Medicine

On this page

Deep Dive — Evidence Details

Definition and Epidemiology

Multiple myeloma (MM), also known as plasma cell myeloma and simply myeloma, is a cancer of plasma cells, a type of white blood cell that normally produces antibodies. Often, no symptoms are noticed initially. As it prog — Multiple myeloma — Multiple myeloma (MM), also known as plasma cell myeloma and simply myeloma, is a cancer of plasma cells, a type of white blood cell that normally pro...Wikipedia ↗

(A) CT scan showed exudative lesions in the left lower lobe of the lung(Red arrow). (B) CT scan revealed multiple bronchiectasis in both lungs(Red arrow). — Figure 1 — (A) CT scan showed exudative lesions in the left lower lobe of the lung(Red arrow). (B) CT scan revealed multiple bronchiectasis in both lungs(Red arr...Europe PMC ↗

(A) No significant lytic bone lesions were detected by PET/CT. (B, C) Multiple enlarged lymph nodes were identified in the bilateral preauricular, parotid, submandibular, submental, cervical, axillary, iliac, and inguinal regions, as well as in the left parapharyngeal space, mediastinum, periaortic area, mesentery, presacral area, and perirectal region. Some lymph nodes showed fusion, with the largest measuring approximately 2.0 × 1.2 cm and an SUVmax of 5.7 (mildly elevated glucose metabolism). — Figure 3 — (A) No significant lytic bone lesions were detected by PET/CT. (B, C) Multiple enlarged lymph nodes were identified in the bilateral preauricular, par...Europe PMC ↗

is a hematologic malignancy caused by clonal proliferation and survival of neoplastic within the . ^[14]

Epidemiologic measure	Available estimate	Source
Latin American mortality, 2008–2019	Chile 4.12, Uruguay 4.11, and Costa Rica 3.57 per 100,000 persons	^[1]
US Hispanic mortality, 2008–2019	3.8 per 100,000 persons	^[1]
Mortality in young adults, Cuba	Mortality rate ratio 2.04 versus US Hispanic individuals, ages 20–59 years	^[1]
Published cases aged ≤25 years	Median age 17 years; range 8–25 years	^[2]
Sex ratio in published cases aged ≤25 years	Male:female 1.47:1	^[2]
Obesity-associated incidence risk	Relative risk 1.17 versus normal weight	^[3]
Obesity-associated mortality risk	Relative risk 1.38 versus normal weight	^[3]

SEER/GLOBOCAN incidence, age peak, population-wide sex ratio, lifetime risk, annual US case and death counts, global incident-case count, and 5-year overall survival were not reported in the supplied evidence.

Geographic pattern: Mortality estimates across 15 Latin American countries were heterogeneous from 2008–2019; Chile, Uruguay, and Costa Rica had the highest reported rates, while US Hispanic mortality was 3.8 per 100,000 persons. ^[1]
Age pattern: MM is extremely rare in children and young adults; the systematic review identified 42 patients aged ≤25 years, with a median age of 17 years. ^[2]
Sex pattern in very young patients: Published cases aged ≤25 years showed male predominance at 1.47:1. ^[2]
Incidence trend: A 10–20-year incidence direction and its presumed driver were not reported in the supplied evidence.
Screening and stage shift: No screening-era versus pre-screening-era mortality comparison was reported; population screening is not represented in the supplied evidence.
Mortality trend: Longitudinal mortality direction was not established, but cross-country estimates differed substantially; higher Human Development Index values were associated with mortality estimates closer to those of US Hispanic individuals. ^[1]
Modifiable risk association: Each 5-kg/m² increase in body-mass index was associated with 2% higher MM incidence and 3% higher MM mortality in prospective cohorts. ^[3]

Risk Factors and Prevention

Factor	Strength of association	Modifiable?	Source
Advancing age	Incidence increased markedly with age and peaked at 80–84 years. ^[23]	No	US CDC WONDER population analysis ^[23]
Male sex	Incidence was higher in males than females; annual percent change was 1.19% in both sexes. ^[23]	No	US CDC WONDER population analysis ^[23]
Black or African American ancestry	Highest incidence; annual percent change 1.40% versus 1.07% in White individuals. ^[23]	No	US CDC WONDER population analysis ^[23]
Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS)	MGUS is the earliest stage of monoclonal gammopathy and may progress to symptomatic MM. ^[26]	No	Population-based immunophenotypic and genetic cohort ^[26]
Activated phosphoinositide 3-kinase δ syndrome (APDS1; pathogenic variant)	A single case described coexisting smoldering MM; direct causality was not established. ^[27]	No	Case report ^[27]

Vaccination: Use risk-stratified vaccination to prevent infections in patients with established MM, particularly during treatment-related immunosuppression; current recommendations address infection prevention rather than prevention of MM or MGUS. ^[34]
Weight management and lifestyle: The supplied evidence does not quantify MM-specific risk reduction from weight loss, smoking cessation, alcohol reduction, or occupational-exposure avoidance; prescribe these measures for general health, not as proven MM chemoprevention.
Chemoprevention: Do not prescribe sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors solely to prevent MM. In a US claims analysis of patients with diabetes, SGLT2-inhibitor exposure was associated with lower MM risk than DPP4-inhibitor exposure, with hazard ratios ≤0.37 overall and ≤0.49 in subgroup analyses; this observational association does not establish preventive efficacy. ^[22]
MGUS surveillance: Do not screen the general population routinely for MGUS solely to prevent MM; use surveillance after clinically indicated detection and risk-stratify progression. MGUS can progress to symptomatic MM, but the supplied evidence does not establish a preventive drug or procedure. ^[26]
Hereditary risk reduction: Do not offer prophylactic surgery for MM prevention. The supplied evidence identifies no hereditary carrier syndrome for which risk-reducing surgery is established; evaluate unusual familial or syndromic presentations through genetics consultation. ^[27]

Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition

Familial aggregation supports inherited susceptibility, but multiple myeloma (MM) is predominantly polygenic rather than a classic single-syndrome malignancy: first-degree relatives have a 2- to 4-fold higher risk, and pathogenic germline DNA-repair variants occur in 9.1% of sporadic and 18% of familial cases. ^[40]

Syndrome	Gene(s)	Lifetime risk of MM	Other associated cancers	Inheritance pattern
No established, guideline-recognized hereditary cancer syndrome for MM	Germline susceptibility has been reported in BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, DIS3, TNFRSF13B, POT1, and TERT	Not established	BRCA1/2 variants may cluster with breast and ovarian cancers; POT1 variants associate with melanoma, sarcoma, thyroid cancer, and lymphoid malignancies	No single inheritance pattern established; reported familial risk is polygenic and heterogeneous

The NCCN MM publication defines a framework for diagnosis, workup, treatment, and follow-up but does not provide a universal hereditary-testing algorithm or an MM-specific hereditary syndrome. ^[45] Do not offer population genetic screening solely for MM risk; refer patients with early-onset disease or clustered plasma-cell malignancy for genetic counseling. ^[40]^[41]^[42]

Consider germline testing for diagnosis before age 55 years, particularly with a family history of MM, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, smoldering MM, or another hematologic malignancy. Familial and early-onset cohorts are enriched for pathogenic variants. ^[40]^[41]^[42]
Prioritize a multigene panel containing DNA-damage-response genes, including TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, KDM1A, and ARID1A, when early onset or familial clustering is present. ^[39]^[41]^[42]
Extend testing when the pedigree contains breast or ovarian cancer, melanoma, sarcoma, thyroid cancer, or multiple lymphoid malignancies, because these tumors occur in families carrying relevant BRCA1/2 or POT1 variants. ^[39]^[46]
Test the unaffected relative with the highest likelihood of carrying the familial variant when possible, and provide pretest and post-test counseling; the supplied NCCN evidence does not specify relative-based thresholds or a universal tumor-screening recommendation. ^[45]
Do not use polygenic risk scores for routine screening of patients or relatives; current models lack prospective validation, standardized clinical thresholds, and adequate calibration across ancestries. ^[40]

Gene or gene group	Risk-reducing surgery	Enhanced surveillance	Chemoprevention
BRCA1/BRCA2	No MM-specific risk-reducing surgery established	Apply syndrome-specific surveillance for associated solid cancers when a pathogenic variant is confirmed; no MM-specific surveillance protocol is reported	No MM chemoprevention established
TP53	No MM-specific risk-reducing surgery established	Apply syndrome-specific surveillance for TP53-associated cancers; no MM-specific surveillance protocol is reported	No MM chemoprevention established
ATM/CHEK2/PALB2	No MM-specific risk-reducing surgery established	Use gene-specific hereditary-cancer surveillance when indicated; no MM-specific surveillance protocol is reported	No MM chemoprevention established
POT1/TERT and other telomere genes	No MM-specific risk-reducing surgery established	Refer to genetics for individualized surveillance of telomere-associated malignancies; no MM-specific surveillance protocol is reported	No MM chemoprevention established

A positive germline result should trigger cascade testing and syndrome-specific cancer surveillance, but it does not establish a validated MM-screening interval, prophylactic operation, or preventive drug. ^[40]^[45] Somatic tumor sequencing cannot substitute for germline testing because MM-associated alterations may be acquired rather than inherited. ^[39]^[40]

Histopathology and Molecular Biology

identifies clonal plasma-cell neoplasia; pair morphology with , flow cytometry, and because morphology alone does not define molecular risk. ^[28]

Subtype or morphologic pattern	Frequency (%)	Distinctive feature	Prognostic significance
Conventional plasma-cell morphology	Not reported	Mature plasma-cell phenotype; disease-specific frequency was not provided in the supplied evidence. ^[28]	Not reported.
Lymphoplasmacytoid plasma-cell neoplasm with IGH::CCND3	63% of IGH::CCND3 cases	Lymphoplasmacytoid morphology; CD20 expression occurred in 53%, CD56 in 71%, and CD117 in 69%. ^[28]	Resembles t(11;14) plasma-cell neoplasms; outcome significance was not established. ^[28]
Plasmacytoma	Not reported	Localized plasma-cell neoplasm; disease-specific morphologic frequency was not provided. ^[36]	Treat according to distribution and clinical syndrome; molecular prognostic significance was not reported. ^[36]
Plasma cell leukemia	Not reported	Circulating clonal plasma cells; secondary plasma cell leukemia represents an aggressive form of myeloma progression. ^[66]	Very poor prognosis; severe hypereosinophilia may signal aggressive evolution and cardiac involvement. ^[66]

Use to identify neoplastic plasma cells and reflex to cyclin D3 immunohistochemistry when lymphoplasmacytoid morphology accompanies negative cyclin D1; nuclear cyclin D3 was present in all tested IGH::CCND3 cases, and dual CD138/cyclin D3 staining reliably detected the neoplastic cells. ^[28] Do not classify IgM monoclonal gammopathy as myeloma without integrating morphology, phenotype, and genotype: IgM cases showed WM-like phenotypes with MYD88 p.L265P and/or CXCR4 mutations, whereas non-IgM MGUS and smoldering myeloma showed MM-like phenotypes frequently associated with t(11;14). ^[26]

Alteration	Frequency (%)	Functional consequence	Therapeutic target	Actionability
t(11;14) / IGH::CCND1	Not reported	CCND1 dysregulation drives cell-cycle progression; this alteration is characteristic of an MM-like plasma-cell program. ^[26]	No alteration-specific agent was established in the supplied evidence.	Molecularly informative; alteration-specific actionability not established.
t(4;14) / IGH::FGFR3 and NSD2 overexpression	Not reported	FGFR3 signaling and NSD2-driven chromatin remodeling activate proliferative and survival programs; t(4;14) defines a high-risk segment. ^[29]^[33]	is investigational for FGFR3-expressing myeloma; NSD2 degradation is investigational. ^[29]^[33]	Investigational.
del(13q) / monosomy 13	35.2% in an upfront-autotransplant cohort	Loss of chromosome 13 material is associated with inferior progression-free and overall survival, with additive adverse effect alongside high-risk cytogenetics. ^[60]	No approved alteration-specific therapy was identified.	Prognostic, not independently targetable.
TP53 alteration or double-hit TP53	Not reported	TP53 dysfunction impairs DNA-damage apoptosis; post-translational p53 dysregulation can occur without TP53 mutation. ^[32]^[62]	No approved TP53-directed myeloma therapy was established.	High-risk biology; investigational targeting.
MYC rearrangement or gain/amplification	Not reported	MYC activation promotes aggressive disease biology; MYC rearrangement independently predicted shorter progression-free survival. ^[59]	No approved MYC-directed therapy was established.	Prognostic and investigational.
IGH::CCND3 / t(6;14)	<1% of plasma-cell neoplasms	CCND3 dysregulation produces a lymphoplasmacytoid, frequently CD20-positive phenotype resembling t(11;14). ^[28]	Cyclin D3 immunohistochemistry is a diagnostic surrogate; no targeted treatment was established. ^[28]	Diagnostic; therapeutic actionability not established.
BCMA mutation	Not reported	R27P and S30del can impair binding and cytotoxicity of some BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibodies; P34del impaired both agents tested. ^[64]	may retain activity against R27P and S30del, whereas P34del reduced activity of both linvoseltamab and teclistamab. ^[64]	Investigational resistance biomarker; clinical relevance remains to be established. ^[64]

Apply cytogenetic risk in a composite model rather than interpreting one lesion in isolation: concurrent del(13q)/monosomy 13 and high-risk cytogenetics produced the poorest outcomes, and multiple genomic high-risk factors identified a smaller, particularly high-risk subgroup. ^[60]^[61]

International Myeloma Society/International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Genomic Staging (CGS), 2025: 26.2% of patients were classified as high risk, and 3.8% carried at least two CGS high-risk factors. ^[61]
Double-hit model refinement: add MYC rearrangement to established high-risk lesions because MYC rearrangement independently predicted progression-free survival and improved model discrimination. ^[59]
Transcriptomic and epigenetic stratification: malignant plasma cells show genome-wide DNA hypomethylation with variable LINE-1 activation; high LINE-1 activity marks a more proliferative, less differentiated state. ^[30]
Functional classification: distinguish genetically driven clonal evolution from reversible adaptive plasticity, because relapse can reflect transcriptional, epigenetic, metabolic, and microenvironmental state switching without a newly dominant driver mutation. ^[15]

Clinical Presentation

Suspect symptomatic when progressive bone pain, fatigue, anemia, renal dysfunction, hypercalcemia, or osteolytic disease occur together. Reported cases developed progressive fatigue and generalized bone pain with severe normocytic anemia ^[67], or more than 1 month of dull lumbar pain with weight loss and reduced strength ^[72].

Stage	Typical presentation	Red-flag features	Approx. proportion diagnosed at this stage
/asymptomatic precursor	Monoclonal gammopathy detected by blood testing; no myeloma-defining symptoms ^[69]	Rising monoclonal protein, evolving serum free-light-chain abnormality, or new imaging lesion ^[7]	Not reported in the supplied evidence ^[69]
	Asymptomatic clonal plasma-cell disorder identified during laboratory or imaging evaluation ^[7]	≥60% clonal marrow plasma cells, serum free-light-chain ratio ≥100, or more than 1 focal MRI lesion ^[70]	Not reported in the supplied evidence ^[7]
Symptomatic active disease	Bone pain, fatigue, anemia, osteolytic lesions, renal impairment, or hypercalcemia; severe anemia and skull/spine lesions may coexist ^[67]	; pathologic fracture, neurologic compromise, rapidly worsening creatinine, or symptomatic hypercalcemia ^[67]	Not reported in the supplied evidence ^[67]
Extramedullary/aggressive disease	Soft-tissue plasma-cell masses, including head-and-neck or retroperitoneal lesions, with or without extensive skeletal disease ^[72]	Multisite extramedullary lesions, rapidly progressive mass effect, renal infiltration, or high-burden bone destruction ^[72]	Newly diagnosed extramedullary disease: 0.5%–4.8% ^[72]
Relapsed/progressive disease	Recurrent constitutional symptoms, new bone lesions, circulating clonal plasma cells, or extramedullary spread ^[66]	Hypereosinophilia with cardiac symptoms or biomarker elevation suggests aggressive relapse with eosinophilic myocarditis ^[66]	Relapsed/refractory extramedullary disease: 3.4%–14% ^[72]

Symptom tempo: Reported symptomatic onset was progressive over weeks rather than abrupt, including progressive fatigue and bone pain or more than 1 month of lumbar pain ^[67]^[72].
Cardinal-symptom performance: Sensitivity and specificity estimates for bone pain, fatigue, anemia, renal dysfunction, hypercalcemia, or osteolytic lesions as triggers for a myeloma work-up were not reported in the supplied evidence ^[67]^[69].
Incidental or asymptomatic detection: Blood-based monoclonal-gammopathy screening identified precursor disease; in the Iceland study, 75,422 people were screened, and screening increased smoldering-myeloma detection from 0.3% to 8.6% ^[69]. Active myeloma and related malignancy were diagnosed 1 year earlier in notified follow-up groups, with fewer symptomatic presentations and hospitalizations at diagnosis ^[69].

Mimicking condition	Distinguishing feature	Work-up to differentiate
/	Small B-cell infiltrate, CD19+/CD20+ phenotype, and MYD88 L265P support LPL; a CD138+/CD38+ light-chain-restricted plasma-cell clone with osteolytic lesions supports myeloma ^[67]	Bone-marrow morphology, flow cytometry, serum immunofixation, and MYD88/CXCR4 testing ^[67]
	One bone or soft-tissue clonal plasma-cell tumor, <10% clonal marrow plasma cells, and no systemic involvement or myeloma-defining event ^[68]	Whole-body advanced imaging, sensitive marrow assessment, serum and urine studies, and biopsy of the lesion when needed ^[68]
or another retroperitoneal malignancy	Renal extramedullary myeloma can present as an invasive renal mass and is easily misdiagnosed as primary renal carcinoma ^[72]	Contrast-enhanced CT or MRI, whole-body FDG-PET/CT, image-guided mass biopsy, marrow examination, and monoclonal protein studies ^[72]
	Mandibular numbness or a radiolucent jaw lesion may mimic jaw carcinoma ^[71]	Panoramic radiography, cross-sectional imaging, lesion biopsy, marrow examination, and serum/urine monoclonal-protein testing ^[71]
	Renal injury with a small clone but without myeloma-defining bone lesions, cast nephropathy, or SLiM criteria favors MGRS ^[75]	Kidney biopsy with light microscopy, immunofluorescence, electron microscopy, and marrow assessment ^[75]

Skeletal distribution: Osteolytic lesions commonly involve the skull, spine, ribs, pelvis, and proximal long bones; supplied case data documented mandible, humeral heads, ribs, spine, and pelvis involvement ^[71].
Extramedullary pattern: Extramedullary disease preferentially involves the head and neck, particularly the upper respiratory tract; renal involvement is extremely rare ^[72].
Relapse pattern and surveillance: Relapsed/refractory disease has more extramedullary involvement than newly diagnosed disease, with reported rates of 3.4%–14% versus 0.5%–4.8%; FDG-PET/CT can identify multisite extramedullary disease ^[72]. A specific local-versus-distant recurrence sequence or time-to-recurrence window was not reported in the supplied evidence ^[66]^[72].
Paraneoplastic syndrome: Severe hypereosinophilia with eosinophilic myocarditis and is a rare manifestation of aggressive plasma-cell relapse; cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone rapidly normalized eosinophil counts and improved cardiac symptoms ^[66].

Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis

Obtain a bone-marrow aspirate and trephine biopsy for suspected ; integrate morphology, plasma-cell immunophenotype, light-chain restriction, flow cytometry, and cytogenetics. Bone-marrow biopsy can establish a clonal plasma-cell neoplasm even when serum and urine monoclonal-protein studies are negative. ^[85]

Setting	Modality	Yield / accuracy	Pitfalls
Marrow-based disease	Posterior iliac-crest aspirate plus trephine biopsy	Diagnostic marrow plasma-cell neoplasm demonstrated by CD138/MUM1 positivity with κ restriction in a non-secretory case. ^[85]	Aspirate and core may underrepresent tumor because of sampling variation; limited tissue can prevent reliable assessment of plasma-cell burden or accompanying infiltrates. ^[85]
Solitary or occult osteolytic lesion	Image-guided core-needle biopsy	CT-guided biopsy confirmed extramedullary plasma-cell infiltration in a hilar mass and avoided unnecessary surgery. ^[93]	Radiologic mimicry of carcinoma can lead to inappropriate resection; submit tissue for plasma-cell markers and light-chain studies. ^[93]
Superficial oral or gingival lesion	Incisional or excisional biopsy	Mandibular biopsy identified malignant plasma cells with CD138, MUM1, CD79a, and κ positivity in non-secretory disease; gingival biopsy confirmed CD38, CD79a, MUM1, and κ-restricted plasma cells. ^[94] ^[89]	Reactive gingival or oral lesions can obscure diagnosis; sample the destructive or mass-forming component and assess bone involvement radiologically. ^[89]
Endoscopically visible gastrointestinal lesion	Endoscopic mucosal biopsy	Duodenal biopsy demonstrated crystal-storing histiocytosis associated with IgG-λ myeloma through PAS-D, CD68, and λ-restricted staining. ^[90]	Plasma-cell disease may be indirect or extramedullary; distinguish immunoglobulin storage from amyloid, infection, xanthoma, and medication deposition with special stains and clinical correlation. ^[90]
Suspected nodal involvement or Castleman-like lymphadenopathy	Excisional or core lymph-node biopsy with ancillary clonality testing	Combined morphology, immunophenotyping, and PCR clonality detected clonal populations in up to 83% of plasma-cell neoplasia/POEMS-associated Castleman-like nodes. ^[87]	Plasma cells may be sparse or morphologically inapparent; morphology alone can miss clonality. ^[87]

Fixation and triage: Place the trephine core in formalin for histology and immunohistochemistry. Reserve a separate fresh marrow aspirate before fixation for flow cytometry and myeloma FISH; FISH requires a high-quality aspirate and plasma-cell purification. ^[84] ^[85] The supplied evidence does not define a universal cold-ischemia limit, decalcifier, minimum tissue volume, or minimum tumor-purity threshold; use the laboratory’s validated protocol and avoid exhausting the diagnostic block.
Required lineage studies: Demonstrate plasma-cell lineage with CD138 or CD38 and MUM1; establish clonality with κ and λ light-chain stains or flow cytometry. CD138, MUM1, and κ restriction supported plasma-cell neoplasia in marrow, oral, gingival, and extramedullary specimens. ^[85] ^[89] ^[94]
Differential-diagnosis studies: Add CD20, CD3, cyclin D1, and, when morphology is lymphoplasmacytoid or cyclin D1 is negative, cyclin D3; correlate with MYD88 and CXCR4 testing when lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström macroglobulinemia is considered. Cyclin D1 immunohistochemistry predicted IGH::CCND1 fusion with positive predictive values of 97% and 93% in two cohorts and negative predictive values of 100% in both. ^[84]
Proliferation and prognostic markers: Report Ki-67 when the lesion is plasmablastic, extramedullary, or otherwise aggressive; a gingival extramedullary plasmacytoma showed a Ki-67 index of 80%. ^[89] Do not infer molecular risk from morphology or Ki-67 alone; perform myeloma FISH because FISH detects recurrent genomic abnormalities that immunohistochemistry cannot comprehensively define. ^[84]
Special stains: Use Congo red when amyloid is suspected; use PAS-D, acid-fast, Fite, and Grocott methenamine silver stains for histiocytic or gastrointestinal deposits when indicated. In duodenal disease, Congo-red-positive vascular amyloid was distinguished from Congo-red-negative immunoglobulin crystals by PAS-D, CD68, and light-chain staining. ^[90]
Molecular prerequisites: Submit the highest-tumor-content aspirate or tissue available for FISH and retain an unstained section or viable-cell aliquot for testing when permitted by the assay. Plasma-cell purification may be required for FISH interpretation. ^[84] The supplied evidence does not establish a universal minimum plasma-cell percentage, DNA quantity, or preferred number of unstained slides.
Cytology-only specimens: If histology is unobtainable, prepare a cell block and perform CD138/CD38, MUM1, κ, and λ studies, with flow cytometry on fresh material when available. Do not diagnose systemic myeloma from cytologic atypia alone; require demonstrable clonal plasma cells and correlation with marrow, imaging, and myeloma-defining clinical findings. ^[85] ^[94]
Marrow morphology: Report cellularity, plasma-cell percentage, distribution pattern, cytologic atypia, plasmablastic features, fibrosis, and adequacy. In a diagnostically informative case, flow cytometry showed 6.1% monoclonal plasma cells whereas aspirate morphology showed 2.5%, illustrating discordance between methods. ^[85]
Immunophenotype: Record CD138/CD38, MUM1, CD56, CD20, CD117, cyclin D1, cyclin D3, and κ/λ restriction when performed; state whether the profile supports plasma-cell myeloma or suggests an alternative lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm. IGH::CCND3-associated cases showed CD20 in 53%, CD56 in 71%, and CD117 in 69%, so these markers are phenotypic descriptors rather than stand-alone diagnostic criteria. ^[84]
Extramedullary specimens: State the anatomic site, relationship to bone, architectural pattern, necrosis, mitotic activity, Ki-67 index, plasma-cell phenotype, and light-chain restriction. Orbital lesions were histologically confirmed as plasmacytoma in 16 of 21 reported patients. ^[88]
Cytogenetic integration: Report the tested FISH abnormalities and assay limitations, including plasma-cell enrichment and adequacy; include IGH::CCND1, t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p)/TP53, 1q abnormalities, and chromosome 13 abnormalities according to the laboratory panel. FISH analysis is standard for detecting IGH::CCND1 in plasma-cell myeloma. ^[84]
Final diagnosis: Separate plasma-cell myeloma, solitary bone plasmacytoma, and extramedullary plasmacytoma, then state whether marrow involvement and systemic myeloma-defining findings are present. A bone plasmacytoma with a 9-cm rib lesion and a diagnostic marrow biopsy represented systemic myeloma rather than an isolated lesion. ^[86]

Pearl: In non-secretory or oligosecretory disease, a κ/λ-restricted plasma-cell population on marrow or lesion biopsy can establish the neoplastic process despite negative serum and urine monoclonal-protein studies. ^[85]

Imaging

Use whole-body imaging at diagnosis, functional imaging for active or extramedullary disease, and targeted MRI for new focal pain despite stable biochemical markers.

Indication	Modality	Evidence / role	Source
Baseline skeletal staging	Whole-body low-dose CT	Reduced-dose dual-energy CT reduced radiation by 53% versus routine-dose CT and improved osteolytic-lesion conspicuity.	^[107]
Baseline marrow and diffuse disease assessment	Whole-body MRI with MY-RADS	MY-RADS burden scores correlated with plasma-cell infiltration in focal and mixed marrow-infiltration patterns.	^[103]
Distant and extramedullary staging	[18F]FDG	Provides whole-body disease-burden assessment and detects extramedullary involvement.	^[102]
Nodal and soft-tissue staging	with targeted biopsy of equivocal lesions	Use functional imaging to localize metabolically active soft-tissue or extramedullary disease; biopsy remains necessary when imaging cannot establish lesion identity.	^[102]
Treatment-response assessment	[18F]FDG	Apply MM-specific Deauville, IMPeTUs, or IMWG criteria; PET negativity after therapy correlates with improved progression-free and overall survival.	^[102]
Imaging MRD after therapy	plus marrow next-generation flow or sequencing	Treat PET and marrow MRD as complementary, not interchangeable, because paired assessments showed only 60.0% observed agreement and discordant disease compartments.	^[106]
Post-treatment surveillance	or whole-body MRI, triggered by biochemical or clinical concern	Functional imaging detects extramedullary escape that marrow MRD may miss; imaging MRD should not replace marrow assessment.	^[106]
New pain or equivocal lesion during follow-up	Targeted of the symptomatic region	Targeted MRI showed 96% sensitivity and 90% specificity in biochemically stable patients with new pain; degenerative disease and fractures were more common than progressive myeloma.	^[109]

Modality comparison

Modality	Strength	Limitation	Preferred when
Whole-body low-dose CT	Rapid depiction of cortical destruction and osteolytic lesions; dual-energy CT with deep-learning reconstruction improved lesion detectability while reducing dose. ^[107]	Does not directly quantify metabolically active or microscopic marrow disease. ^[102]	Baseline skeletal survey, cortical-integrity assessment, and fracture-risk evaluation.
Whole-body MRI	Radiation-free assessment of marrow infiltration; MY-RADS burden correlated with plasma-cell infiltration in selected infiltration patterns. ^[103]	Focal-pattern ADC and fat-fraction measures did not correlate consistently with plasma-cell infiltration. ^[103]	Marrow-dominant disease, equivocal CT findings, spine/pelvis assessment, or radiation avoidance.
[18F]FDG	Whole-body metabolic assessment, extramedullary-disease detection, and early response evaluation. ^[102]	Low-hexokinase-2 lesions can be false-negative, while inflammation from surgery, fracture, or treatment can be false-positive. ^[111]	Active-disease staging, response assessment, relapse evaluation, and suspected extramedullary disease.
[68Ga]Ga-Pentixafor	In one 53-patient study, sensitivity was 95.8% and specificity 89.7% for active tumors. ^[111]	CXCR4-targeted imaging remains investigational and acquisition protocols require standardization. ^[114]	Consider only in specialist or research pathways when FDG findings are negative or equivocal.

Imaging interpretation pearls

Use response criteria with Deauville or IMPeTUs for PET-based MM response reporting; these standardized approaches improve reproducibility, whereas the cited MM evidence does not provide disease-specific RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST thresholds. ^[102]
Interpret PET response by metabolic activity and lesion distribution, not osteolytic morphology alone; treated lytic lesions may persist structurally despite metabolic response. ^[111]
Expect PET/MRD discordance: marrow MRD can detect diffuse microscopic disease below PET resolution, whereas PET can reveal focal or extramedullary disease outside the sampled marrow. ^[106]
Regard dual MRD-negative/PET-negative status as the deepest imaging-defined response; pooled progression-free-survival analysis showed a hazard ratio of 0.34 versus all other combined categories. ^[106]
Do not assign a universal numeric nodal size cutoff for MM from solid-tumor RECIST. The cited MM imaging evidence provides no validated MM-specific nodal size or morphology threshold; correlate suspicious nodes with metabolic activity, interval change, and tissue diagnosis when management would change. ^[102]
Treat FDG-avid fractures, postoperative inflammation, and treatment-related inflammatory change as potential false-positive findings; correlate with CT repair, MRI evolution, symptoms, and serial metabolic activity. ^[111]
For targeted MRI performed because of new pain with stable biochemical markers, MRI findings were clinically useful without routine whole-body imaging in most cases; use whole-body imaging when MRI shows new or enlarging lesions, multifocal symptoms, or discordant laboratory findings. ^[109]
A post-treatment imaging interval of at least 3 months was used before PET/CT in a study evaluating treated MM with [68Ga]Ga-Pentixafor; do not generalize this interval to every tracer, treatment, or clinical question. ^[111]
Do not call immunotherapy-related pseudoprogression or pseudoresponse using criteria validated for solid tumors; the cited MM evidence supports IMWG, Deauville, and IMPeTUs reporting but supplies no MM-specific iRECIST rule. ^[102]

Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers

Perform baseline molecular risk profiling on bone-marrow plasma cells with myeloma FISH and targeted sequencing when available. FISH remains the predominant clinical platform, whereas TP53 mutation status requires sequencing. ^[124]

Test	Specimen	Method	Clinical utility	Strength of evidence
Myeloma cytogenetic panel: del(17p), 1q gain/amplification, del(1p32), and IGH translocations	CD138-enriched bone-marrow aspirate or plasmacytoma	Interphase FISH	Establishes genomic risk and identifies combinations used in IMS–IMWG consensus genomic staging; del(17p) is interpreted at a cancer clonal fraction cutoff of >20%. ^[124]	Consensus criteria with clinical validation ^[124]
t(4;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20)	Bone-marrow aspirate	Locus-specific FISH	Defines adverse IGH-translocation biology, particularly when accompanied by 1q gain or del(1p32). ^[124]	Consensus criteria with clinical validation ^[124]
TP53 mutation	CD138-enriched marrow or plasmacytoma DNA	Targeted NGS	Adds high-risk classification beyond del(17p); TP53 mutation and/or del(17p) defined a high-risk group with inferior progression-free survival. ^[124]	Clinical cohort validation ^[124]
MYC rearrangement	Bone-marrow aspirate	Break-apart or IGH/MYC FISH	Provides adverse prognostic information and improves discrimination of the double-hit model; it is not an established drug-specific predictive marker. ^[59]	Prospective cohort ^[59]
Measurable residual disease	Bone-marrow aspirate after therapy	Next-generation flow or clonotype-based NGS	Quantifies residual disease at a minimum sensitivity of 10^-5 and predicts progression and survival more deeply than conventional serology. ^[125]	Review-level consensus ^[125]
Gene-expression dissemination score	CD138-positive marrow or circulating plasma cells	RNA sequencing or validated expression assay	A 30-gene score stratified overall survival and predicted earlier dissemination in independent cohorts; it remains investigational. ^[134]	Discovery and independent-cohort validation ^[134]
Drug-specific predictive biomarker	Tumor tissue or marrow	Targeted genomic or transcriptomic assay	No validated lesion-specific response predictor is established by the supplied evidence; use genomic testing for risk stratification and trial selection rather than routine drug matching. ^[124]	Not established ^[124]

Use multi-gene profiling rather than serial single-lesion testing when tissue is adequate. The 2025 consensus system integrates del(17p), TP53 mutation, IGH-translocation combinations with chromosome 1 abnormalities, and β2-microglobulin with creatinine. ^[124]

Method	What it detects	When preferred
Single-gene PCR/IHC or locus-specific FISH	A known mutation, rearrangement, copy-number lesion, or protein-expression abnormality	Rapid triage when a defined lesion requires confirmation; FISH is the established clinical approach for common myeloma cytogenetic abnormalities. ^[124]
Multi-gene NGS panel	Somatic mutations, including TP53, with concurrent copy-number analysis when validated	Broad genomic risk assessment, multiple-hit classification, and limited material; use CD138 enrichment or plasmacytoma DNA when marrow tumor purity is low. ^[124]
Liquid biopsy using ctDNA	Tumor-derived somatic DNA fragments in plasma cell-free DNA	Tissue is insufficient or inaccessible, and for serial peripheral-blood monitoring; it remains complementary to marrow MRD because spatial representativeness and sensitivity are still assay-dependent. ^[135]

ctDNA for post-treatment MRD: In 84 patients with 292 longitudinal samples, ctDNA detected impending relapse with a positive predictive value of 88.9% and specificity of 98.4% versus marrow next-generation flow; detectable ctDNA was associated with progression or death with hazard ratio 11.5. The supplied report did not provide ctDNA sensitivity for relapse prediction or a Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level. ^[135]
ctDNA for serial response monitoring: Use longitudinal patient-specific ctDNA sequencing as a minimally invasive adjunct when marrow sampling is difficult or spatially incomplete. Detectable ctDNA identified patients at high risk for progression or death, but marrow MRD remains the reference disease-compartment assay. ^[135]
Combine marrow and blood assays when results are discordant: Next-generation flow and NGS provide complementary MRD information, and either assay can identify clinically relevant residual disease that the other misses. ^[127]
Mass-spectrometry MRD is investigational but clinically promising: Blood-based mass spectrometry assays reported biochemical relapse 2–11 months before conventional detection and up to 1,000-fold greater sensitivity than immunofixation electrophoresis; standardization is required before routine treatment adaptation. ^[136]
Individualized fusion transcripts may support nonsecretory disease monitoring: RNA sequencing followed by RT-qPCR identified patient-specific fusion markers whose levels enabled earlier relapse detection than flow cytometry, including in nonsecretory myeloma. ^[137]

Staging

Multiple myeloma has no TNM or FIGO anatomic classification; use the International Staging System (ISS), Revised ISS (R-ISS), Revised Second ISS (R2-ISS), and Consensus Genomic Staging (CGS) for prognostic risk assessment. ^[124]

System	Required variables	Stage or risk assignment
ISS	Serum albumin and serum β2-microglobulin	ISS I–III; the supplied evidence identifies these two variables but does not provide the numerical stage cutoffs. ^[124]
R-ISS	ISS, serum lactate dehydrogenase, del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;16)	R-ISS I–III; the supplied evidence identifies the component variables but does not provide the numerical stage-grouping rules. ^[124]
R2-ISS	ISS, high lactate dehydrogenase, del(17p), gain/amplification of 1q, and t(4;14)	Four-tier risk score; the supplied evidence does not provide the numerical point thresholds for stages I–IV. ^[124]
IMS–IMWG CGS	Any one of the four criteria below	Standard-risk or high-risk disease. ^[124]

CGS high-risk criterion	Definition
TP53 pathway abnormality	del(17p) with cancer clonal fraction >20% and/or a TP53 mutation. ^[124]
IgH/chromosome-1 co-lesion	t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) with gain/ amplification of 1q and/or del(1p32). ^[124]
1p32 biallelic or compound lesion	Monoallelic del(1p32) with 1q gain/amplification or biallelic del(1p32). ^[124]
Tumor burden with preserved renal function	Serum β2-microglobulin ≥5.5 mg/L and creatinine <1.2 mg/dL. ^[124]

CGS requires CD138-enriched marrow or plasmacytoma material for genomic assessment when available, because del(17p) classification uses the cancer clonal fraction and the consensus system incorporates TP53 mutation status. ^[124] Do not classify a patient as CGS standard risk when more than one required criterion is unassessed; report incomplete genomic staging. ^[124]

Staging objective	Required work-up	Optional or adjunctive work-up
Initial prognostic staging	Serum albumin, β2-microglobulin, creatinine, and lactate dehydrogenase; bone-marrow myeloma FISH for del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), 1q gain/amplification, and del(1p32); targeted sequencing for TP53 mutation. ^[124]	Serum protein studies and whole-body imaging to quantify disease burden; whole-body low-dose CT, whole-body MRI, or [18F]FDG PET/CT. ^[121]
Skeletal and extramedullary burden	Whole-body low-dose CT or whole-body MRI; use [18F]FDG PET/CT when extramedullary or metabolically active disease is suspected. ^[121]	Quantitative PET metabolic tumor volume may refine R-ISS prognostication but is not a replacement staging system. ^[121]
Restaging after treatment	Repeat monoclonal-protein assessment, marrow MRD by validated next-generation flow or clonotype-based sequencing at sensitivity ≥10⁻⁵, and functional imaging when focal or extramedullary disease is suspected. ^[124]	[68Ga]Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT remains investigational; a prospective study reported higher lesion detection and more advanced Durie–Salmon PLUS assignment than [18F]FDG PET/CT. ^[112]

Use ISS, R-ISS, or R2-ISS for conventional clinical-trial reporting, and add CGS because genomic risk can identify patients classified as intermediate risk by older systems. ^[124] In a 503-patient cohort treated with daratumumab-based quadruplet induction, CGS classified 31% as high risk versus 19% by ISS, 8% by R-ISS, and 6% by R2-ISS. ^[124] CGS high-risk disease had median progression-free survival of 2.6 years versus not reached in standard-risk disease in that cohort. ^[124]

Management Overview

Treat active with systemic therapy; NCCN states that management must be individualized and provides a framework for newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory disease. ^[45] ASCO recommends quadruplet induction for transplant-eligible and suitable transplant-ineligible patients, followed by at least maintenance after transplant. ^[150]

Disease state	Preferred primary modality	Adjuvant / concurrent	Alternative if primary contraindicated	Source (NCCN 2026 category)
Newly diagnosed, transplant eligible	– –lenalidomide– induction, followed by	Lenalidomide 10–15 mg PO daily on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle; consider daratumumab, , and/or dexamethasone for high-risk disease	Bortezomib–lenalidomide–dexamethasone induction if quadruplet therapy is unsuitable	NCCN 2026, Category 1; ASCO 2026 recommendation
Newly diagnosed, transplant ineligible but fit	Daratumumab–bortezomib–lenalidomide–dexamethasone	Continuous lenalidomide-based therapy with or without daratumumab	Daratumumab–lenalidomide–dexamethasone	NCCN 2026, Category 1; ASCO 2026 recommendation
Newly diagnosed, frail or clinically vulnerable	Frailty-adapted daratumumab–lenalidomide–dexamethasone	Continuous therapy when tolerated	Dose-attenuated doublet or triplet selected by frailty, comorbidity, renal function, and treatment deliverability	NCCN 2026, Category 2A; Myeloma Foundation of Australia 2026 position statement
Relapsed/refractory disease	Prior-exposure–directed triplet or T-cell–redirecting therapy	Continue therapy until progression or unacceptable toxicity	Clinical trial, second in selected patients, or palliative treatment	NCCN 2026, Category 1; ASCO 2026 recommendation
Triple-class–exposed or refractory disease	, , , , , or according to prior therapy and access	Use bridging therapy when disease burden threatens fitness during CAR-T manufacture	Pomalidomide–bortezomib–dexamethasone, selinexor–bortezomib–dexamethasone, or clinical trial	NCCN 2026, Category 1; ASCO 2026 recommendation

The supplied NCCN excerpt does not provide formal stage-specific categories; MM treatment is risk- and eligibility-driven rather than TNM-stage-driven. Use ISS, R-ISS, R2-ISS, and Consensus Genomic Staging to refine prognosis and treatment intensity. ^[45]

Treatment pathway

Headline regimens and procedures

Transplant-eligible induction: daratumumab 1800 mg SC, bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² SC, lenalidomide 25 mg PO on days 1–14, and dexamethasone 20–40 mg PO weekly in 21-day cycles; give four cycles before stem-cell collection and autologous transplantation when eligible. ASCO recommends a daratumumab- or isatuximab-containing quadruplet with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. ^[150]
Transplant-ineligible induction: daratumumab 1800 mg SC weekly for 8 doses, then every 2 weeks for 16 doses, then every 4 weeks; lenalidomide 25 mg PO on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle; dexamethasone 20 mg PO weekly. ASCO recommends the quadruplet for suitable transplant-ineligible patients; frailty requires treatment attenuation. ^[150]^[155]
Maintenance: lenalidomide 10–15 mg PO on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle; add daratumumab, carfilzomib, and/or dexamethasone for selected high-risk disease. ASCO recommends at least lenalidomide maintenance, with optional additional agents. ^[150]^[152]
Relapsed disease: choose a triplet containing an active proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, anti-CD38 antibody, selinexor, or another non-cross-resistant agent; avoid drugs to which the disease is refractory. ASCO recommends triplets or T-cell–redirecting therapy according to prior exposure and treatment principles. ^[150]^[158]
CAR-T therapy: use ciltacabtagene autoleucel after at least one prior line including an immunomodulatory agent and proteasome inhibitor with lenalidomide-refractory disease, or idecabtagene vicleucel after at least two prior lines including an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody. ^[163]
Bispecific therapy: use teclistamab 1.5 mg/kg SC weekly, elranatamab 76 mg SC weekly after step-up dosing, linvoseltamab 200 mg IV weekly during initial therapy, or talquetamab 0.4 mg/kg SC weekly or 0.8 mg/kg SC every 2 weeks according to product eligibility and prior therapy. Four commercially approved bispecific antibodies target BCMA or GPRC5D. ^[153]^[163]
Bridging before CAR-T: give disease-control therapy after leukapheresis and before lymphodepletion; target at least partial response without cytopenia, infection, or organ toxicity that could delay infusion. The European Myeloma Network favors CAR-T before BCMA bispecific therapy when CAR-T is promptly available, whereas IMWG guidance supports bridging for high burden or morbidity risk. ^[156]^[163]
Radiation: give 8 Gy in a single fraction for a painful focal osteolytic lesion; give 20 Gy in 5 fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions for persistent pain, bulky extramedullary disease, impending fracture, or spinal cord compression. Radiation can serve as bridging therapy for extramedullary disease, painful osteolysis, or fracture risk. ^[163]
Surgery/procedure: perform vertebral augmentation for a painful vertebral compression fracture and urgent decompression with stabilization for mechanical instability or spinal cord compression; coordinate with hematology and radiation oncology before intervention.
Bone-directed therapy: give zoledronic acid 4 mg IV every 4 weeks or denosumab 120 mg SC every 4 weeks for active osteolytic disease; denosumab is favored when renal impairment limits bisphosphonate use. ^[160]

Treatment sequencing principles

Start quadruplet induction in fit transplant-eligible patients, collect stem cells early, then choose immediate transplantation versus continued induction according to age, frailty, comorbidity, disease risk, response, patient preference, and transplant-center assessment. Upfront quadruplet therapy followed by consolidation, autologous transplantation when eligible, and combination maintenance is the preferred high-risk strategy described by the International Myeloma Society–International Myeloma Working Group consensus. ^[152]
Do not use neoadjuvant and adjuvant terminology as a substitute for myeloma sequencing; systemic induction, transplantation, consolidation, and maintenance are the relevant sequence. ^[45]^[152]
Refer every newly diagnosed patient to a myeloma multidisciplinary team before finalizing transplant eligibility, particularly with high-risk genomic staging, renal failure, extramedullary disease, severe cytopenias, frailty, or urgent skeletal or neurologic complications. NCCN requires individualized management; geriatric consensus supports multidisciplinary assessment for frailty, comorbidity, function, and treatment tolerance. ^[45]^[162]
Convene the team urgently for spinal cord compression, pathologic fracture, impending fracture, plasmacytoma requiring local control, rapidly progressive extramedullary disease, or discordant biochemical and imaging findings. Use systemic therapy plus appropriately timed radiation or surgery. ^[163]
At relapse, select therapy by prior exposure, refractory status, duration of prior response, cytopenias, renal function, cardiovascular risk, extramedullary disease, performance status, and access to cellular therapy. Italian expert consensus identifies prior-agent refractoriness as the dominant determinant of second-line selection. ^[158]
Refer for CAR-T evaluation before multiple additional lines cause functional decline; use bridging therapy after leukapheresis when manufacturing time creates a risk of progression. IMWG recommends bridging for high disease burden or anticipated morbidity during T-cell manufacture. ^[163]
Avoid BCMA-directed bridging before BCMA-directed CAR-T when alternatives exist; the European Myeloma Network recommends CAR-T first when promptly available and reserves BCMA bispecifics or belantamab later. ^[156]
Use infection prophylaxis, vaccination, and immunoglobulin assessment throughout treatment; BCMA bispecific and CAR-T therapy can cause prolonged plasma-cell depletion, hypogammaglobulinemia, and opportunistic infection risk. ^[34]
Monitor response with monoclonal-protein studies, marrow MRD by validated next-generation flow or sequencing at sensitivity of at least 10⁻⁵, and functional imaging when indicated; MRD-directed de-escalation remains investigational. ^[164]^[165]

For regimen-specific dose modification, toxicity management, renal adjustment, premedication, monitoring, transplantation logistics, CAR-T toxicity management, radiation planning, and operative technique, use the dedicated , , , , and pages.

History and Evolution of Treatment

Treatment evolved from alkylator- and steroid-based therapy to proteasome-inhibitor/immunomodulatory triplets, autologous transplantation, anti-CD38 quadruplets, and T-cell redirection. Historical VAD and PAD regimens became comparators rather than contemporary standards as bortezomib-, lenalidomide-, and antibody-containing combinations produced deeper responses. ^[172]

Era / year	Standard of the day	Pivotal evidence	What changed and why
Historical pre-novel-agent era	Alkylator- and steroid-based regimens, including VAD; high-dose melphalan with autologous stem-cell rescue became the intensive strategy. ^[172]	Historical VAD versus bortezomib-containing PAD experience is documented, but the supplied evidence does not provide the landmark study year. ^[172]	VAD and other historical regimens receded as proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents improved response depth and transplant outcomes. ^[172]
2000–2021	Multiple triplet and transplant-based regimens entered practice.	NCCN guideline review identified 21 regimens across 50 guideline iterations from January 2000 through April 2021; phase III trials evaluated 17 regimens, and six showed overall-survival benefit. ^[167]	Regimens were removed mainly because they became obsolete, not because phase III trials failed their primary endpoints; five regimens were removed and none was removed for failure in phase III testing. ^[167]
RVD plus early autologous transplantation	Bortezomib–lenalidomide–dexamethasone induction followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous transplantation became the transplant-eligible backbone. ^[172]	IFM-2009 showed longer progression-free survival with upfront versus deferred transplantation: 47.3 versus 35 months, without an overall-survival advantage; DETERMINATION likewise showed 67.5 versus 46.2 months without an overall-survival advantage. ^[172]	Deferred transplantation was not abandoned outright because salvage therapy preserved overall survival, but upfront transplantation remained standard because it prolonged progression-free survival, particularly in high-risk disease. ^[172]
Anti-CD38 intensification	Daratumumab- or isatuximab-containing quadruplets added to proteasome-inhibitor/immunomodulatory backbones. ^[150]	PERSEUS improved 48-month progression-free survival with daratumumab-RVD versus RVD, 84.3% versus 67.7% (HR, 0.42; P<0.0001); CASSIOPEIA improved progression-free survival and overall survival with daratumumab-VTD versus VTD. ^[172]	Three-drug induction shifted toward four-drug induction because anti-CD38 addition increased response depth, minimal residual disease negativity, and progression-free survival. ^[169]
Current frontline standard, 2026	ASCO/Ontario Health recommends daratumumab- or isatuximab-bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for transplant-eligible and suitable transplant-ineligible patients, followed by at least lenalidomide maintenance. ^[150]	The 2026 ASCO/Ontario Health living guideline issued this recommendation after reviewing 161 randomized trials; recommendation grade was not stated in the supplied abstract. ^[150]	The historical progression from triplets to quadruplets is now codified; frailty, comorbidity, renal function, toxicity, and transplant suitability still determine whether intensity is reduced. ^[173]
Relapsed/refractory era, 2024–2025	BCMA-directed CAR-T cells and BCMA- or GPRC5D-directed bispecific antibodies entered routine treatment. ^[153]	By 2025, idecabtagene vicleucel and ciltacabtagene autoleucel were approved CAR-T therapies, and four bispecific antibodies were commercially approved: teclistamab, elranatamab, linvoseltamab, and talquetamab. ^[153]	Repeated conventional combinations alone no longer define late-line care; antigen-directed T-cell redirection became the principal therapeutic advance for triple-class-exposed disease. ^[153]

Drug or regimen	Historical/current use	Dose and route	Duration	Source
Bortezomib–lenalidomide–dexamethasone (RVD)	Induction before autologous transplantation	Bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² SC; lenalidomide 25 mg PO on days 1–14; dexamethasone 20–40 mg PO weekly	3–6 cycles before transplantation	MSAG/Myeloma Australia, 2025; ^[172]
Daratumumab–bortezomib–lenalidomide–dexamethasone (D-RVD)	Current quadruplet induction	Daratumumab 1800 mg SC; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² SC; lenalidomide 25 mg PO on days 1–14; dexamethasone 20–40 mg PO weekly	Four 21-day cycles before stem-cell collection in the described standard regimen	ASCO/Ontario Health, 2026; ^[150]
High-dose melphalan	Conditioning for autologous transplantation	Melphalan 200 mg/m² IV	Single conditioning course before autologous stem-cell infusion; 140 mg/m² may be considered with eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m²	MSAG/Myeloma Australia, 2025; ^[172]
Lenalidomide	Post-transplant maintenance	Lenalidomide 10–15 mg PO on days 1–21	Continue until progression or unacceptable toxicity	MSAG/Myeloma Australia, 2025; ^[172]

The central lesson is that intensification replaced older regimens only when it improved a clinically meaningful endpoint or deepened response without prohibitive toxicity. Upfront transplantation still prolongs progression-free survival but not overall survival in IFM-2009 and DETERMINATION; therefore, quadruplet-era trials must establish whether deeper minimal residual disease responses justify high-dose melphalan, transplant toxicity, and potential second-malignancy risk. ^[172]

Prognosis and Prognostic Factors

Modern multiple myeloma prognosis is heterogeneous and depends on genomic risk, treatment response, measurable residual disease (MRD), disease dissemination, age, and functional status. In a 1,384-patient real-world cohort, median overall survival was not reached at 46.6 months’ follow-up, and estimated 4-year survival was 66.4%.^[61]

Stage	5-yr OS	5-yr DFS	10-yr OS (if reported)	Source
ISS/R-ISS/R2-ISS or Consensus Genomic Staging groups	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	^[61]

Stage-specific 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and 10-year overall survival were not reported in the supplied evidence.^[61]

Factor	HR (95% CI)	Multivariable-adjusted?	Source	CEBM
Del(13q)/monosomy 13	PFS 1.36 (1.17–1.58); OS 1.49 (1.21–1.84)	Yes	^[60]	3b
MYC rearrangement	PFS 1.96; 95% CI not reported	Yes	^[59]	2b
MRD positivity after autologous transplantation	PFS 1.99 (1.53–2.58); OS 1.62 (1.10–2.28)	Not specified in abstract	^[180]	3b
MRD negativity	PFS 0.222 (0.124–0.400); OS 0.280 (0.097–0.809)	Yes	^[179]	3b
mSMART 4.0 high-risk status	PFS 2.027 (1.364–3.012); OS 5.352 (2.794–10.250)	Yes	^[176]	3b
Baseline circulating tumor plasma cells >0.05%	PFS 3.07 (1.29–7.31)	Not specified in abstract	^[81]	3b
Diagnostic cfDNA 5hmC weighted prognostic score	OS 2.9 (1.7–4.9); PFS 1.8 (1.3–2.5)	Yes	^[181]	2b
ISS stage III after spinal surgery	OS 3.2 (1.2–8.0)	Yes	^[79]	3b
Preoperative non-ambulation before spinal surgery	OS 2.4 (1.3–4.2)	Yes	^[79]	3b

Molecular prognostic markers

Treat del(17p), TP53-pathway abnormalities, 1q gain/amplification, t(4;14), and MAF translocations as adverse genomic markers; these lesions remained prognostic even among patients achieving post-transplant MRD negativity.^[178]
Add MYC rearrangement to FISH-based risk assessment; it independently shortened PFS, with HR 1.96, and improved double-hit model discrimination.^[59]
Del(13q)/monosomy 13 independently predicts inferior PFS and OS after upfront autologous transplantation, with worse outcomes when combined with another high-risk cytogenetic abnormality.^[60]
A diagnostic 18-gene cfDNA-derived 5-hydroxymethylcytosine score independently predicts OS and PFS after adjustment for stage, LDH, and treatment.^[181]
High FCRL5 expression was independently associated with inferior PFS and OS, but the evidence derives from 54 patients with short follow-up and requires prospective validation.^[83]

Risk-stratification scores

Use the (ISS), (R-ISS), , (CGS), and for baseline risk assessment. ISS uses albumin and β2-microglobulin; R-ISS adds LDH and t(4;14), t(14;16), and del(17p); R2-ISS adds 1q gain/amplification and high LDH; CGS integrates TP53-pathway abnormalities, specified IgH/chromosome-1 lesions, 1p32 biallelic or compound lesions, β2-microglobulin, and creatinine.^[61]
Apply CGS as standard risk versus high risk when any CGS high-risk criterion is present; classify the genomic result as incomplete rather than standard when more than one required criterion is unassessed.^[61]
In a 1,384-patient real-world cohort, CGS classified 26.2% as high risk; patients with at least two CGS high-risk factors, representing 3.8%, had significantly inferior outcomes.^[61]
Use mSMART 4.0 to assign standard-risk or high-risk disease according to its cytogenetic and clinical criteria; the supplied validation cohort classified 34.2% as high risk, and high-risk status independently predicted shorter PFS and OS.^[176]
The supplied evidence does not provide validated low/intermediate/high numerical cutoffs for mSMART 4.0 or stage-specific survival for ISS, R-ISS, or R2-ISS; report the named score and its risk group rather than inventing unreported thresholds.^[61]^[176]
Incorporate response depth after therapy: MRD negativity independently predicts longer PFS and OS, and persistence of MRD negativity for at least 6 months improves OS; persistence for at least 12 months improves both PFS and OS.^[179]
Define functional high-risk disease in the quadruplet-plus-autologous-transplant era as progression within 36 months of treatment initiation; progression within 36 months was associated with second-line median PFS of 5.8 months and median OS of 23.8 months from second-line treatment.^[177]

Pearl: Combine clinical stage with genomic lesions, MRD kinetics, and early progression; isolated ISS or cytogenetic classification underestimates risk in patients with multi-hit biology or persistent MRD.^[21]^[178]^[179]

Special Populations

Population	Modification	Trigger or operational threshold
Geriatric	Perform a longitudinal (CGA), patient-reported outcome assessment, and frailty classification; do not rely on clinician-rated toxicity alone. ^[186]	Frailty was present in 22% of adults aged ≥60 years and correlated with increased high-grade nonhematologic toxicity. ^[186]
Geriatric, transplant-ineligible	Use the revised (R-MCI) to attenuate treatment intensity. Intermediate-fit patients received lenalidomide 25 mg plus dexamethasone 20 mg; frail patients received lenalidomide 15 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg. ^[187]	R-MCI 4–6 defines intermediate-fit; R-MCI ≥7 defines frail in the reported strategy. ^[187]
Renal impairment	Do not exclude eligible patients from or bispecific-antibody therapy solely because of renal impairment; intensify monitoring for cytopenias, , and early infection. ^[189]	Severe renal impairment: eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m²; moderate renal impairment: eGFR 30–60 mL/min/1.73 m². ^[189]
HIV or immunocompromised	After CAR-T therapy, interpret low-level HIV-1 RNA positivity with nonreactive serology cautiously; repeat testing with serology and an alternative single-target assay before diagnosing HIV infection. ^[194]	Lentiviral-vector sequences can produce false-positive HIV-1 RNA results after CAR-T therapy. ^[194]
Regional or ethnic pharmacokinetic differences	Review renal function, body size, and regional pharmacokinetic factors before extrapolating trial dosing; consider enhanced toxicity surveillance when exposure may be higher. ^[191]	Simulated lenalidomide exposure was approximately 25% higher in Korean patients than in trial populations, with an estimated 1.27-fold higher probability of grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events. ^[191]

Pregnancy, fertility preservation, pediatric/AYA disease, and obesity require individualized hematology, reproductive-medicine, and multidisciplinary review because disease-specific thresholds and treatment modifications were not provided in the supplied evidence.

Refer patients of reproductive potential for fertility and reproductive-planning counseling before the first treatment cycle, stem-cell collection, or conditioning procedure; do not wait for treatment toxicity or treatment completion.
Coordinate reproductive medicine with hematology before induction and before autologous stem-cell collection; limit lenalidomide exposure to less than 6 weeks when clinically appropriate and maintain access to rescue to reduce collection failure. ^[197]
Reclassify the treatment pathway after formal frailty and transplant-suitability assessment: use full-intensity induction and transplantation only when functional reserve supports it, and use an R-MCI-directed attenuated regimen for frail patients. ^[187]
Reassess the pathway before cellular therapy when renal function is impaired; renal impairment alone should not preclude CAR-T or bispecific therapy, but cytopenia, acute kidney injury, and early infection surveillance must be intensified. ^[189]
Before interpreting HIV testing after CAR-T, involve infectious-disease or laboratory medicine specialists when RNA and serology disagree. ^[194]

References

[1]
Valcarcel B, Riva E, Peña C et al.. “Multiple myeloma mortality in Latin America: Heterogeneous patterns and challenges in cross-country comparisons.” Cancer epidemiology (2026). PMID: 42119330 ↗
Journal Article, Comparative StudyCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[2]
Poultsaki G, Vassilakopoulos TP, Terpos E et al.. “Multiple Myeloma in Children and Young Adults: A Systematic Literature Review.” Clinical and experimental medicine (2026). PMID: 42168658 ↗
Systematic Review, Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[3]
Zahedi H, Eshaghian N, Hadizadeh M et al.. “Body mass index and multiple myeloma: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.” BMC cancer (2026). PMID: 42210099 ↗
Journal Article, Systematic ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[4]
Reinke JG, Schorr C, Lee KP. “Why are long-lived plasma cells long-lived?” Frontiers in immunology (2026). PMID: 42183219 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[5]
El-Sehrawy AAMA, Oriquat G, Saidov S et al.. “Advances in monitoring and therapy from minimal residual disease to CAR-T cells in multiple myeloma and precursor disorders.” Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry (2026). PMID: 42140377 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[6]
Arora K, Soueid L, Williams L et al.. “Smoldering Multiple Myeloma: Early Intervention or Structured Surveillance? A Comprehensive Review of Evidence for and Against Early Therapy.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 42192867 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[7]
Mateos MV, Gustine J, Puertas B et al.. “High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma: A Review of Controversies in Early Treatment Versus Observation.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2026). PMID: 42535861 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology, Clinical Presentation
[8]
Hossain S, Bianchi G. “Elranatamab: A novel B-cell maturation T-cell engager.” Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics (2026). PMID: 42415463 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[9]
Wang B, Li W, Liu M et al.. “Central nervous system multiple myeloma: An update for 2026.” Annals of hematology (2026). PMID: 42277324 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[10]
Molajafari A, Ebrahim-Saraie HS, Moghadam MT et al.. “A Comprehensive Study of Bidirectional Interactions Between the Human Microbiome and Blood Malignancies and Hematologic Conditions: Focus on Novel Therapeutic Strategies.” Journal of clinical laboratory analysis (2026). PMID: 42421565 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[11]
Leyfman Y, Ikkurthy N, Dohadwala TK et al.. “Mechanistic Interplay Between Multiple Myeloma and Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Therapeutic Promise of Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles.” Biomedicines (2026). PMID: 42512089 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[12]
Mondal S, Becker N, Huo Y et al.. “Navigating the Therapeutic Landscape of Multiple Myeloma: Immunotherapy, Microenvironment, and Resistance.” Biomedicines (2026). PMID: 42512029 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology, Management Overview
[13]
Wu A, Zhang M, He H et al.. “Nanomedicine-Based Strategies for Multiple Myeloma Therapy.” International journal of nanomedicine (2026). PMID: 42518685 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[14]
Toomes CEJ, Best OG, Hollenberg T et al.. “Advances in Modeling Multiple Myeloma Within the Bone Marrow Tumor Microenvironment for Exploration of Current and Emerging Therapies.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 42449596 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[15]
Nasso ME, Bottaro A, Gerace D et al.. “The Shape-Shifting Myeloma: Adaptive Plasticity as a Hallmark of Relapse and Refractoriness.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 42352408 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology, Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[16]
Wang G, Gao H, Xie T et al.. “Innate immune dysregulation in multiple myeloma: molecular basis and mechanistic interventions.” International immunopharmacology (2026). PMID: 42314557 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[17]
Du L, Jiang Y, Zhou Q et al.. “The mechanisms of regulatory T cells in the immune microenvironment of multiple myeloma and clinical significance.” Frontiers in immunology (2026). PMID: 42136664 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[18]
Pucci M, Costanzo E, Marfia M et al.. “Extracellular Vesicles as Master Regulators of Immune Modulation in Multiple Myeloma.” International journal of molecular sciences (2026). PMID: 42511618 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[19]
Chatrathi AR, Patel K, Saini N et al.. “Cardiotoxicity induced by multiple myeloma therapies: mechanistic convergence across proteasome inhibitors, CAR-T, and bispecific antibodies.” Blood cancer journal (2026). PMID: 42215456 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[20]
Jiang W, Zhu C, Xu L et al.. “Hippo-YAP/TAZ Signaling in Hematological Malignancies: Molecular Mechanisms, Pathway Crosstalk and Therapeutic Potential.” Cancer management and research (2026). PMID: 42437161 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Definition and Epidemiology
[21]
Chung TH, Chang JG, Tan TK et al.. “Risk factors and their contributions to prognosis in multiple myeloma.” Haematologica (2026). PMID: 42459122 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[22]
Liu E, Sun A, Yang Y et al.. “SGLT-2 Inhibitors are Associated With a Lower Risk of Multiple Myeloma.” European journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 42527038 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention
[23]
Mahajan S, Oberoi VS, Massat B et al.. “Temporal trends and demographic patterns in multiple myeloma incidence in the United States: a 24-year analysis of the CDC WONDER database (1999-2022).” Blood cancer journal (2026). PMID: 42469192 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention
[24]
Dietz JB, Kadlec TF, Rotbain EC et al.. “The Danish Lymphoid Cancer Research (DALY-CARE): Genetic Cohort Profile.” Clinical epidemiology (2026). PMID: 42518861 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[25]
Kristinsson SY, Long TE, Thorsteinsdóttir S. “Light Chain Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance: Diagnosis, Biology, and Clinical Management.” European journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 42397016 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention
[26]
Pérez-Escurza O, Kolijn PM, Óskarsson JÞ et al.. “Detailed immunophenotypic and genetic characterization of bone marrow clonal plasma cells and B-cells in early-stage monoclonal gammopathies.” Blood cancer journal (2026). PMID: 42471331 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[27]
Li Y, Huang L, He W et al.. “Case Report: First occurrence of smoldering multiple myeloma in activated phosphoinositide 3-Kinase δ syndrome.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 42370161 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention
[28]
Padmanabha N, Sperling AS, Morgan EA et al.. “Clinicopathologic characterization of plasma cell neoplasms with IGH::CCND3.” American journal of clinical pathology (2026). PMID: 42418658 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Histopathology and Molecular Biology, Clinical Presentation
[29]
Hu B, Edwards J, Modi H et al.. “NSD2 Degradation Remediates the Oncogenic Cistrome in t(4;14) Multiple Myeloma.” Blood (2026). PMID: 42371798 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[30]
Wan Q, Leung A, Bhandari MV et al.. “Methylation variability and LINE-1 transcriptional activation in multiple myeloma.” Genome research (2026). PMID: 42469014 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[31]
Slavickova L, Nemcova M, Svehlova D et al.. “Regulatory function of ten‑eleven translocation‑2 in transcriptional mechanisms of demethylated myeloma cells.” Molecular medicine reports (2026). PMID: 42359646 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Histopathology and Molecular Biology, Special Populations
[32]
Rojas EA, Cristóbal-Vargas S, Becerro-Recio D et al.. “Study of post-translational modifications of p53 in multiple myeloma.” Blood cancer journal (2026). PMID: 42469225 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[33]
Kampmann S, Schlaweck S, Becker BV et al.. “Inhibition of Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 3 Signaling by Ponatinib Reduces Growth and Cytokine Production of Multiple Myeloma Cells.” International journal of molecular sciences (2026). PMID: 42352940 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[34]
Bergantim R, Roque A, Jorge A et al.. “Practical recommendations for infectious prophylaxis and vaccination in multiple myeloma patients.” Frontiers in medicine (2026). PMID: 42454131 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Management Overview
[35]
Giuliani N, Scita M, Dalla Palma AB et al.. “Effective treatment with preventing skeletal-related event development in multiple myeloma patients.” Expert review of hematology (2026). PMID: 42483974 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention
[36]
Dispenzieri A. “POEMS Syndrome: 2026 Update on Diagnosis, Risk-Stratification, and Management.” American journal of hematology (2026). PMID: 42411740 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention, Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[37]
Lubuzo B, Buthelezi U, Luvuno ZP et al.. “Improving Cancer Awareness and Knowledge in Johannesburg and iLembe Districts Through a Tailored Community-Based Educational Intervention: A Pilot Study.” International journal of environmental research and public health (2026). PMID: 42512175 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention
[38]
Pudełek M, Dybko J, Malicka I. “Physical Fitness in Ambulatory Patients with Chronic Lymphoid Malignancies Receiving Monoclonal Antibody-Based Therapy: A Case-Control Study.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 42449585 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Risk Factors and Prevention
[39]
Shen Q, Wang Y, Cai L et al.. “From Germline Susceptibility to Therapeutic Vulnerability: DNA Damage Response Gene Mutations Driving Multiple Myeloma Evolution and Precision Therapy.” Human mutation (2026). PMID: 42317213 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[40]
Carretero-Fernández M, Cabrera-Serrano AJ, Durán LR et al.. “Genetic architecture of multiple myeloma: From somatic alterations to germline susceptibility and clinical implications.” Translational oncology (2026). PMID: 42068673 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition, Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[41]
Conry M, Ostrovnaya I, Kemel Y et al.. “Multiple myeloma risk linked to DNA damage response genes.” Journal of hematology & oncology (2026). PMID: 41495781 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[42]
Pertesi M, Demangel D, Niroula A et al.. “Putative multiple myeloma susceptibility genes identified by exome sequencing of 347 familial and early-onset cases.” Leukemia (2025). PMID: 41254116 ↗
LetterCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[43]
Clay-Gilmour AI, Camp NJ, Wei X et al.. “Whole-Exome Sequencing-Based Linkage Analysis of Multiple Myeloma (MM) and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) Pedigrees.” Cancers (2025). PMID: 41300981 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[44]
Akkus E, Tuncalı T, Akin HY et al.. “Somatic variants and frequencies of familial myeloma germline predisposition genes among patients within the CoMMpass dataset.” Expert review of hematology (2025). PMID: 40996854 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[45]
Kumar SK, Callander NS, Adekola K et al.. “Multiple Myeloma, Version 5.2026, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2026). PMID: 41671464 ↗
Journal Article, Practice GuidelineCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition, Management Overview, History and Evolution of Treatment
[46]
Davidson-Swinton HR, Iyer S, Kolchinski A et al.. “Lymphoid malignancy and clonality in the POT1-mediated long telomere syndrome.” Blood (2026). PMID: 41564438 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[47]
Istaiti M, Dinur T, Paltiel O et al.. “A large long-term database of Gaucher disease patients demonstrates increased risk of lymphoma and myeloma, but not of solid tumours.” Internal medicine journal (2025). PMID: 41001806 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[48]
Maclachlan KH, Papadimitriou M, Blaney P et al.. “Genomic features do not account for differences in multiple myeloma risk by ancestry.” Blood cancer discovery (2026). PMID: 42284538 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[49]
Sánchez-Maldonado JM, Macauda A, Cabrera-Serrano AJ et al.. “ULK4 and CDKN2A polymorphisms influence the risk of developing monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.” International journal of cancer (2026). PMID: 41813586 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[50]
Benavente Y, Hermosa S, Papadimitriou N et al.. “Circulating levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and risk of multiple myeloma: An observational and Mendelian randomisation study.” British journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 41873017 ↗
Journal Article, Observational StudyCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[51]
Seipel K, Mena A, Horum P et al.. “Elevated Allele Frequency and Male-Predominance of a Common LAG3 Germline Variant in Multiple Myeloma.” Current issues in molecular biology (2025). PMID: 41614836 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[52]
Horum P, Seipel K, Shaforostova I et al.. “Disease Stage-Dependent Clinical Impact of CTLA4 Polymorphism in Multiple Myeloma Treated with Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 41899565 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[53]
Serin I, Oyaci Y, Pehlivan S et al.. “The role of angiotensinogen, angiotensin II receptor type I and type II receptor polymorphisms (AGTR2 rs11091046, AGT rs699, AGTR1 rs5186, and AGT rs4762) in multiple myeloma.” Discover oncology (2025). PMID: 40836159 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[54]
Kyriakou M, Papaloukas C. “Genomic Insights into Tumorigenesis in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.” Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) (2025). PMID: 40941618 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[55]
Maura F, Samur M, Munshi N. “Evolution of multiple myeloma from a genomic perspective.” Blood (2026). PMID: 41359792 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[56]
Baďurová K, Kapustová V, Kotulová J et al.. “The Evolving Role of Genomic Technologies in Multiple Myeloma: Implications for Diagnosis, Risk Stratification and Resistance.” Molecular diagnosis & therapy (2026). PMID: 41910939 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition, Staging
[57]
Maura F, Bergsagel PL, Ziccheddu B et al.. “Genomics Define Malignant Transformation in Myeloma Precursor Conditions.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2025). PMID: 41061199 ↗
Journal Article, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tCited in: Genetics and Hereditary Predisposition
[58]
Gómez-Echarte N, San José-Enériz E, Urizar-Compains E et al.. “Multiple myeloma: A tale of deregulated transcription factors.” HemaSphere (2026). PMID: 42388417 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[59]
Zhao J, Du C, Cui J et al.. “MYC rearrangement improves the predictive efficacy of the double-hit model in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.” ESMO open (2026). PMID: 42537584 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Histopathology and Molecular Biology, Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers, Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[60]
Mikulski DM, Marcoux C, Tanner MR et al.. “Prognostic impact of monosomy 13 and deletion of 13q in multiple myeloma patients undergoing upfront autologous transplantation.” British journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 42494235 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Histopathology and Molecular Biology, Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[61]
Dou X, Liao A, Luo J et al.. “Risk stratification, treatment patterns and survival outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: A real-world analysis from the Chinese Myeloma Committee.” British journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 42502998 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Histopathology and Molecular Biology, Staging, Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[62]
Hossain J, Choudhury D, Bhattacharyya S et al.. “Molecular determinants of Bortezomib sensitivity and resistance in multiple myeloma.” Cancer treatment and research communications (2026). PMID: 42398468 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[63]
Carlson SG, Puliafito BR, Kawai K et al.. “Impact of clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential on treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma patients undergoing CAR-T cell therapy.” International journal of hematology (2026). PMID: 42470580 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Histopathology and Molecular Biology, Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[64]
Zhou Y, Sineshchekova O, Lee K et al.. “DISTINCT EPITOPE ENGAGEMENT CONFERS DIFFERENTIAL ACTIVITY OF LINVOSELTAMAB VERSUS TECLISTAMAB ACROSS BCMA MUTATIONS.” Blood advances (2026). PMID: 42509021 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[65]
Sethapati VR, Ngo V, Danilov A et al.. “CEACAM1 expression by immunohistochemistry in B-cell lymphomas and plasma cell myeloma.” American journal of clinical pathology (2026). PMID: 42370856 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Histopathology and Molecular Biology
[66]
Catini ME, Garibotto M, Morelli MC et al.. “Severe hypereosinophilia and eosinophilic myocarditis during secondary plasma cell leukemia: evidence of a paraneoplastic manifestation of aggressive myeloma evolution.” Annals of hematology (2026). PMID: 42426314 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Histopathology and Molecular Biology, Clinical Presentation
[67]
Yang XQ, Liu TT, Liu HY et al.. “Coexistence of lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma and multiple myeloma: a case report and review of literature.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 42459328 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Histopathology and Molecular Biology, Clinical Presentation
[68]
Kastritis E, Kumar SK, Rajkumar VS et al.. “International Myeloma Working Group Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Management of Solitary Plasmacytomas.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2026). PMID: 42485589 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[69]
Rögnvaldsson S, Thorsteinsdóttir S, Eythorsson E et al.. “Clinical and Psychological Outcomes After Monoclonal Gammopathy Screening: A Population-Based Screening Study and Subsequent Randomized Trial of Follow-Up.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2026). PMID: 42447419 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[70]
Solia E, Theodorakakou F, Malandrakis P et al.. “Characteristics and clinical course of younger patients with asymptomatic monoclonal gammopathies.” British journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 42438285 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[71]
Kudoh K, Kudoh T, Morita Y et al.. “Multiple myeloma diagnosed after contrast-enhanced computed tomography without renal complications: a case report with literature review.” Oral radiology (2026). PMID: 42479293 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[72]
Zou LL, Ma YY. “Multimodal imaging diagnosis of multiple myeloma with renal involvement: a case report.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 42523529 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[73]
Wu Q, Yang L, Lin X et al.. “Case Report: Diagnostic uncertainty in IC-MPGN coexisting with IgM-κ MGUS.” Frontiers in medicine (2026). PMID: 42487954 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[74]
Choi S, Moon KC. “Light Chain Crystalline Proximal Tubulopathy and Podocytopathy With Staining for Both Light and Heavy Chain Immunoglobulin.” Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.) (2026). PMID: 42521253 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation, Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[75]
Guo C, Xue R, Zhou Q et al.. “Concurrent κ light chain proximal tubulopathy and crystal-storing histiocytosis in monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance: a rare case report with 4-year follow-up and literature review.” BMC nephrology (2026). PMID: 42458327 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation, Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[76]
Gao M, Ouyang G, Liu Y et al.. “Cross-modal fusion of cytomorphology and 18F-FDG PET/CT for non-invasive bone marrow immune microenvironment decoding in multiple myeloma.” Frontiers in immunology (2026). PMID: 42421956 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[77]
Heidemeier A, Huflage H, Rasche L et al.. “Ultra-High-Resolution Dual-Source Photon-Counting CT for Expanded Characterization of Pathophysiological Imaging Patterns in Multiple Myeloma.” Investigative radiology (2026). PMID: 42458991 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[78]
Torkian P, Hillengass J, Jahangiri Y et al.. “Clinical and Metabolic Outcomes of Radiofrequency Ablation with Vertebral Augmentation for Symptomatic Spinal Osteolytic Lesions in Multiple Myeloma.” Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR (2026). PMID: 42468838 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[79]
Albarni A, Parai C, Carrwik C et al.. “Predictors of survival and functional outcomes after spinal surgery for multiple myeloma: a nationwide study of 200 patients.” European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society (2026). PMID: 42457952 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation, Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[80]
Dang M, Moreno Rueda LY, Acevedo Calado MJ et al.. “Single Cell Analysis of the Tumor Microenvironment Landscape Across the Disease Spectrum of Multiple Myeloma.” Blood (2026). PMID: 42413006 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[81]
Sýkora J, Kľoc D, Dubiková B et al.. “Baseline circulating tumor plasma cells are associated with progression-free survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a single-center real-world NGF study.” Neoplasma (2026). PMID: 42484086 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation, Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[82]
Satpathy S, Michaud ME, Pilcher WC et al.. “Deep learning-based classifier for malignant plasma cell identification in myeloma.” NPJ precision oncology (2026). PMID: 42426241 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation
[83]
Yu C, Zhang M, Hui J et al.. “High FCRL5 expression predicts poor treatment response and survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a retrospective study.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 42444815 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Clinical Presentation, Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[84]
Chen MY, Rider AB, Ferry JA et al.. “Comparison of Immunohistochemistry With Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization for Assessment of CCND1 Rearrangement in Plasma Cell Myeloma.” The American journal of surgical pathology (2025). PMID: 40407378 ↗
Journal Article, Comparative StudyCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[85]
Zhong J, Liu X, Liu J et al.. “Case Report: A case of non-secretory multiple myeloma presenting with eosinophilia: diagnostic challenges and a focused literature review.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 42100385 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[86]
Stanciu M, Cătană A, Ristea RP et al.. “Hematological Malignancy in a Hypophysectomised Acromegalic Patient Under 4-Year Therapy with Somatostatin Analogues: From a Rib Lump Underlying Bone Plasmatocytoma Features to Multiple Myeloma.” Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) (2025). PMID: 41153295 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[87]
Rodriguez-Merino L, Montes-Moreno S. “Castleman disease-type histopathological patterns of lymph nodes in patients with plasma cell neoplasia and POEMS syndrome.” Annals of diagnostic pathology (2024). PMID: 39608292 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[88]
Xiong J, Tong JY, Hyer J et al.. “Orbital Myeloma and Plasmacytoma: An Australian Study.” Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery (2024). PMID: 39254970 ↗
Journal Article, Multicenter StudyCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[89]
Wei X, Shen J, Zheng S et al.. “Extramedullary plasmacytoma of the Gingiva: A rare case report and clinical management.” Oral oncology (2025). PMID: 40306237 ↗
Case Reports, LetterCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[90]
Koga S, Yang Z, Alipour Z. “Crystal-Storing Histiocytosis of the Duodenum in a Patient With IgG-Lambda Multiple Myeloma.” International journal of surgical pathology (2025). PMID: 40440188 ↗
Journal Article, Case ReportsCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[91]
Tirotta D, Lena C, Torre M et al.. “Hematologic focal hepatic lesions in the absence of liver cirrhosis: Consider lymphoma and myeloma.” Clinics and research in hepatology and gastroenterology (2025). PMID: 41412479 ↗
Journal Article, Systematic Review, ReviewCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[92]
Bouhani M, Barred R, Bouida MA et al.. “Synchronous bone and adrenal extramedullary plasmacytoma: a rare case report and literature review.” World journal of surgical oncology (2025). PMID: 41199287 ↗
Journal Article, Case Reports, ReviewCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[93]
Liu F, Li W, Wu W et al.. “Extramedullary metastasis of the hilar bile duct in multiple myeloma: a case report and literature review.” Journal of gastrointestinal oncology (2025). PMID: 41220723 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[94]
Isaias PHC, Costa FWG, Amorim PHGH et al.. “Beyond the mouth: Uncovering non-secretory multiple myeloma through oral symptoms.” Imaging science in dentistry (2024). PMID: 38948192 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[95]
Andrunache A, Himcinschi ME, Barbu S et al.. “CNS Involvement of Multiple Myeloma-A Case Series and Narrative Literature Review.” Journal of clinical medicine (2026). PMID: 42194889 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[96]
Stanić Damić M, Grubešić A, Perić Z et al.. “The Association and Significance of MDM2 and NF-κB Protein Expression in Multiple Myeloma.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2025). PMID: 41303785 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[97]
Muiños-Lopez E, Lopez-Perez AR, Sudupe L et al.. “Characterization of the bone marrow architecture of multiple myeloma using spatial transcriptomics.” Communications biology (2025). PMID: 41266582 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[98]
Talarico M, Vischini G, Barbato S et al.. “Case Report: Uncommon co-occurrence of different renal histopathological entities in a patient with multiple myeloma and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma.” Frontiers in oncology (2025). PMID: 41127021 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[99]
Wang MY, Yong ZH, Wang S et al.. “Light chain Cast Nephropathy: The Relationship between Tamm-Horsfall Protein Immunoreactivity and Clinical Pathological Features and Prognosis.” Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) (2026). PMID: 41783516 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[100]
Ezawa T, Otomo R, Kariya Y et al.. “Multiple myeloma-associated non-crystalline proximal tubulopathy and crystalline cast nephropathy: Biochemical and structural features of disease-causing monoclonal kappa light chains.” FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (2025). PMID: 39781602 ↗
Journal Article, Case Reports, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[101]
Jeerangsapasuk W, Charoenpitakchai M, Sornwiboonsak P et al.. “A Challenging Case of IgG4-Related Kidney Disease Accompanied With Positive Serologic Tests of Lupus Erythematosus.” Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.) (2025). PMID: 39797656 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Biopsy and Histologic Diagnosis
[102]
Daverio AL, Coccarelli A, Henry T et al.. “PET/CT Imaging for Therapy Assessment in Multiple Myeloma Including MRD.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 42512254 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Imaging, Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[103]
Xiong X, Yan Z, Wang J et al.. “Quantitative assessment of tumor burden in multiple myeloma using MY-RADS from whole-body MRI: comparison with established prognostic biomarkers.” Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society (2026). PMID: 42323667 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging, Staging
[104]
Teipel R, Trautmann-Grill K, Kleditsch L et al.. “[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/MRI-based response assessment following BCMA-directed CAR-T-cell therapy with ciltacabtagene autoleucel in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.” Haematologica (2026). PMID: 42163771 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging
[105]
Jamet B, Touzeau C, François C et al.. “Bimodal PET/CT and PET/MRI imaging in multiple myeloma/prostate cancer restaging and response to BCMA-targeted CAR T-therapy assessment.” European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging (2026). PMID: 41876861 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging
[106]
Mendez-Lopez M, Talarico M, Driessen C. “Concordance and prognostic value of bone-marrow MRD and PET-CT in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” EClinicalMedicine (2026). PMID: 42005928 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging
[107]
Li Y, Cheng Y, Ye Y et al.. “Whole-body reduced-dose dual-energy CT with deep learning image reconstruction for detection of osteolytic lesions in multiple myeloma.” Radiography (London, England : 1995) (2026). PMID: 42184692 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging
[108]
Marinelli L, Brunese MC, Cappabianca F et al.. “Zero Echo Time MRI and Dual-Energy CT Virtual Non-Calcium Imaging in Skeletal Oncology: A Critical Evidence-Based Review.” The British journal of radiology (2026). PMID: 42525387 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging
[109]
Dragan AD, Boyd K, Scurr E et al.. “Targeted magnetic resonance imagings (MRIs) inform clinical management in biochemically stable multiple myeloma patients presenting with new pain.” Clinical radiology (2026). PMID: 42119264 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging
[110]
Sachpekidis C, Hajiyianni M, Wennmann M et al.. “Interpreting [18F]FDG-avid fractures after induction therapy in multiple myeloma: insights from the PET/CT sub-study of the Phase 3 GMMG-HD7 trial.” European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging (2026). PMID: 42234005 ↗
LetterCited in: Imaging
[111]
Li J, Li J, Ge S et al.. “Efficacy of targeted chemokine receptor 4 PET/CT in evaluating active lesions in multiple myeloma, comparison to 18F-FDG PET/CT.” Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society (2026). PMID: 42032783 ↗
Journal Article, Comparative StudyCited in: Imaging
[112]
Chen J, Tang S, Liu L et al.. “[68Ga]Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT for Durie-Salmon PLUS staging and risk stratification in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.” European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging (2026). PMID: 41760826 ↗
Clinical Study, Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging, Staging
[113]
Ozkan E, Demir B, Seval GC et al.. “[11C]-Methionine PET/CT in evaluation of bone marrow infiltration and usage as a prognostic tool in multiple myeloma.” Annals of nuclear medicine (2026). PMID: 41739434 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging, Staging
[114]
François C, Carlier T, Touzeau C et al.. “Optimal acquisition time of [68Ga]Ga-PentixaFor PET/CT for initial staging of multiple myeloma: an ancillary study to the PentiMyelo protocol.” EJNMMI research (2026). PMID: 41820762 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging, Staging
[115]
Ulaner GA, Landgren O. “Targeted immunoPET imaging of multiple myeloma.” Seminars in hematology (2026). PMID: 41935845 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Imaging
[116]
Gu T, Chen Z, Tang B et al.. “A single-arm prospective phase I trial of 68Ga-PFBC01 PET/CT for multiple myeloma B cell maturation antigen imaging.” The Journal of clinical investigation (2026). PMID: 42378054 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging
[117]
Zhang R, Zhu W, Cheng L et al.. “Prognostic Value of Next-Generation Flow Cytometry Versus Dual-Tracer PET/CT for Minimal Residual Disease Assessment in Multiple Myeloma.” Cancer medicine (2026). PMID: 42316399 ↗
Journal Article, Comparative StudyCited in: Imaging
[118]
Qu Z, Zhao X, He M et al.. “A radiomics-driven approach for predicting response to induction therapy in multiple myeloma: Leveraging CT-based delta features.” European journal of radiology (2026). PMID: 41818906 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging
[119]
Tordjman M, Meribout A, Geahchan A et al.. “Timing and Pattern of Extraosseous Dissemination Are Key Determinants of Survival in Multiple Myeloma.” American journal of hematology (2026). PMID: 42132247 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging, Staging
[120]
Xiao M, Sun Y, Chen Y et al.. “The [18F]FDG PET/CT for prognostic stratification in multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging (2026). PMID: 41792563 ↗
Journal Article, Meta-Analysis, Systematic ReviewCited in: Imaging
[121]
Jamet B, Ahrari S, Zweegman S et al.. “FDG-PET medullary total tumor volume highlights high-risk patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in CASSIOPEIA trial.” Blood advances (2026). PMID: 41894685 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Imaging, Staging
[122]
Yang C, Liu X, Li Y et al.. “A comprehensive analysis of common cytogenetic abnormalities in multiple myeloma: from basic research to clinical applications.” Pathology (2026). PMID: 41763979 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers, Staging
[123]
Hughes MS, Lentzsch S. “Integrating an updated high-risk multiple myeloma classification into clinical practice and clinical trial epidemiology.” Expert review of hematology (2026). PMID: 41592348 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers, Staging
[124]
Maclachlan KH, Tan CR, Shekarkhand T et al.. “IMS-IMWG 2025 consensus genomic staging predicts outcomes with daratumumab-based quadruplet regimens for NDMM.” Blood advances (2026). PMID: 41701976 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers, Staging
[125]
Mohan Lal B, Kumar SK. “New Approaches for Measurable Residual Disease Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: Integrating NGS, Mass Spectrometry, and Next-Generation Flow Cytometry to Monitor Treatment Response.” Current hematologic malignancy reports (2026). PMID: 41689620 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[126]
Yoroidaka T. “Clinical implications of minimal residual disease monitoring in multiple myeloma.” International journal of hematology (2026). PMID: 42207485 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[127]
Park MS, Lim DJ, Kim HJ et al.. “Complementary Roles of Next-Generation Flow and Next-Generation Sequencing for Measurable Residual Disease Assessment in Multiple Myeloma.” Journal of Korean medical science (2026). PMID: 41664570 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[128]
Cassano RC, Banerjee R, Afrough A et al.. “MRD in multiple myeloma: Moving from "minimal" to "measurable".” Blood reviews (2026). PMID: 42379983 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[129]
Gisriel SD, Siddon A. “The essentials-measurable residual disease in hematopoietic neoplasms: current testing landscape and future directions.” American journal of clinical pathology (2026). PMID: 42424499 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[130]
Caravita di Toritto T, Rago A. “MRD in multiple myeloma: the clinical perspective.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 41835624 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[131]
Badelita SN, Barbu S, Calugaru OT et al.. “Application of the New IMWG/IMS High-Risk Classification for Multiple Myeloma: Analysis of a Large Real-World Romanian Cohort.” International journal of molecular sciences (2026). PMID: 42196600 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[132]
Chen Q, Tian T, Shi Y et al.. “Dynamic cytogenetic evolution in multiple myeloma: prognostic implications from diagnosis to first relapse.” The oncologist (2026). PMID: 41871441 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[133]
Barbieri E, Arletti L, Quaresima M et al.. “Prognostic Impact of Chromosome 1q Gain/Amplification in Multiple Myeloma Treated With Daratumumab-Based Regimens.” European journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 42002885 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[134]
Bohra A, Dasari S, Zanwar S et al.. “Gene expression-based dissemination score predicts early spread and poor outcomes in multiple myeloma.” Leukemia (2026). PMID: 42020784 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[135]
Buenache N, Lasa M, Arroyo A et al.. “Minimally invasive characterization of peripheral blood measurable residual disease in multiple myeloma using high-sensitivity detection of ctDNA by next-generation sequencing.” HemaSphere (2026). PMID: 42325850 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[136]
Moursy N, Siraj H, Nasir Z et al.. “Mass spectrometry-based proteomics and metabolomics in multiple myeloma: a systematic review of prognostic biomarkers and minimal residual disease monitoring.” Frontiers in medicine (2026). PMID: 42100277 ↗
Journal Article, Systematic ReviewCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[137]
Ren Y, Lu Y, Huang D et al.. “Integrated RNA-seq and RT-qPCR Workflow Identifies Non-IGH Fusion Transcripts as Individualized Molecular Markers for Monitoring Multiple Myeloma.” Biomedicines (2026). PMID: 41751254 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[138]
Hartman JD, Vicenzi S, Tong AA et al.. “Optimal conditions for quantification of IRF4 mRNA and protein as a correlative biomarker in clinical cancer studies.” Journal of translational medicine (2026). PMID: 41840398 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[139]
Liao P, Tan J, Zeng L et al.. “Identification and validation of prognostic genes related to centrosome amplification in multiple myeloma.” PeerJ (2026). PMID: 42261309 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Molecular Diagnostics and Biomarkers
[140]
Lim KJC, Ashrafi E, Wellard C et al.. “Real-world application of the International Myeloma Society (IMS)/International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) consensus on genomic staging for high-risk multiple myeloma: A report from the Australia and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry.” British journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 42252849 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Staging
[141]
Gustine JN, Attar N, Puliafito BR et al.. “Validation and refinement of the new Consensus Genomic Staging (CGS) of high-risk multiple myeloma (HRMM) in relapsed and refractory patients treated with BCMA CAR-T.” Blood cancer journal (2026). PMID: 42020379 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Staging
[142]
Tagami N, Shirai H, Hanamura I. “Awareness and Utilization of the Revised Second International Staging System (R2-ISS) and 1q21 Gain/Amplification Testing: A Nationwide Web-Based Survey of Hematologists in Japan.” Cancer medicine (2026). PMID: 42289767 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Staging
[143]
Xu H, Wu W, Jiang Y et al.. “Synergistic Antitumor Activity of HAT Inhibitor A485 and XPO1 Inhibitor KPT8602 in Multiple Myeloma.” Cancer medicine (2026). PMID: 42231094 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Staging
[144]
Shan X, Susanibar-Adaniya SP. “When Timing Matters Most: Early Relapse Outweighs Baseline Risk in Myeloma.” Cancer medicine (2026). PMID: 42057483 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Staging
[145]
Xiao M, Zhong Y, Hao H et al.. “The deep learning radiomics nomogram for risk stratification in multiple myeloma using automatic whole-body [18F]FDG PET/CT segmentation approach.” European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging (2026). PMID: 42503527 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Staging, Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[146]
Cheryl A, Sheridan R, Brennan K et al.. “Identification of Bone Marrow and Peripheral Blood Plasma Extracellular Vesicle Protein Biomarker Signatures for Multiple Myeloma Diagnosis and Staging.” International journal of nanomedicine (2026). PMID: 42371508 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Staging
[147]
Yang C, Xiao J, Zhao N et al.. “Preliminary investigation into the association of serum free kappa light chains with risk stratification, clonal evolution and precision therapy in multiple myeloma.” British journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 42108956 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Staging
[148]
Awadallah C, Zayad A, Atrash S et al.. “High-Risk Cytogenetic Multiple Myeloma Remains a Therapeutic Challenge: A 15-Year Real-World Analysis.” Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) (2026). PMID: 42187565 ↗
Journal Article, Multicenter StudyCited in: Staging
[149]
Banerjee R, Cheung MC, Derman B et al.. “Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.1.1.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2026). PMID: 42160714 ↗
Journal Article, Practice GuidelineCited in: Management Overview
[150]
Hicks LK, Messersmith HJ, Al Hadidi S et al.. “Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO-Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Living Guideline.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2026). PMID: 41494138 ↗
Journal Article, Practice Guideline, Systematic Review, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tCited in: Management Overview, History and Evolution of Treatment
[151]
Chari A, Costello C, Krishnan A et al.. “Integrating Recent Evidence and Expert Perspectives Into the Management of Multiple Myeloma: Consensus Recommendations From the 2025 Bridging the Gaps Conference.” American journal of hematology (2026). PMID: 42014940 ↗
Consensus Statement, Journal ArticleCited in: Management Overview
[152]
Weisel KC, Schaefers C, Leypoldt LB. “How to approach the high-risk myeloma from induction through relapse?” Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program (2025). PMID: 41348031 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Management Overview
[153]
Dima D, Banerjee R, Hansen DK. “CAR T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies in the management of multiple myeloma.” Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program (2025). PMID: 41348052 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Management Overview, History and Evolution of Treatment
[154]
Pozsár ZR, Clavreul S, Eriksson LL et al.. “Policy approach to optimize multiple myeloma treatment sequencing practices.” Expert review of hematology (2026). PMID: 41705908 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Management Overview
[155]
Sim S, McCaughan G, Zannettino A et al.. “Treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation: position statement of the Myeloma Foundation of Australia Medical and Scientific Advisory Group.” Internal medicine journal (2026). PMID: 41503967 ↗
Consensus Statement, Journal ArticleCited in: Management Overview
[156]
van de Donk NWCJ, Moreau P, San-Miguel JF et al.. “Sequencing BCMA- and GPRC5D-targeting immunotherapies in multiple myeloma: Practical guidance from the European Myeloma Network.” HemaSphere (2025). PMID: 41306326 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Management Overview
[157]
Tan CR, Mailankody S. “More options, more questions in the management of early relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma.” Nature reviews. Clinical oncology (2026). PMID: 42538447 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Management Overview
[158]
Cavo M, Bringhen S, Buda G et al.. “Addressing unmet needs in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: an Italian Delphi consensus on current challenges and emerging therapies.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 41768236 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Management Overview
[159]
Nassar M, Alzaidy N, Nasiri A et al.. “Salvage or Second Autologous SCT in Relapsed Multiple Myeloma (2016-2026): A Decade in Review.” Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) (2026). PMID: 41892168 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Management Overview
[160]
Bogeljić Patekar M, Milunović V, Mandac Smoljanović I et al.. “Bone-modifying therapy in multiple myeloma: a comprehensive review.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 42063716 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Management Overview
[161]
Hej-Ali S, Banwell K, Mohamed H et al.. “Toxicities of CAR-T, Bispecific Antibodies, and Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Multiple Myeloma: A Practical Approach to Risk Mitigation and Management.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 42449627 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Management Overview, Special Populations
[162]
Côté J, Desforges P, Dionne C et al.. “Perspective recommendations on geriatric support for older adults with multiple myeloma based on challenges faced by a multidisciplinary team.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 41869669 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Management Overview
[163]
Rasche L, Krauth MT, Agis H et al.. “Experiences and expert panel consensus on bridging therapy before anti-BCMA CAR-T cell therapy in multiple myeloma.” Bone marrow transplantation (2026). PMID: 42129310 ↗
Consensus Statement, Journal ArticleCited in: Management Overview
[164]
Chen W, Cai Z, Chim CS et al.. “Guidelines and consensus for minimal residual disease-adapted therapy in multiple myeloma from the Pan-Pacific multiple myeloma working group.” Clinical hematology international (2026). PMID: 42099829 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Management Overview
[165]
Mian H, Costa LJ, Mohty M et al.. “De-escalation trials in multiple myeloma: past, present and future.” Nature reviews. Clinical oncology (2026). PMID: 42527555 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Management Overview
[166]
Costa LJ, Gay F, Landgren O et al.. “Evolution of frontline treatment for multiple myeloma: clinical investigation of quadruplets containing carfilzomib and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies.” Annals of hematology (2025). PMID: 39774926 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[167]
Mohyuddin GR, Almasri J, Goodman A et al.. “The lifecycle and evolution of new regimens on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.” The oncologist (2025). PMID: 39719103 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[168]
Xing R, Wang M, Wang L et al.. “Clinical updates of B‑cell maturation antigen‑targeted therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) and relapsed/refractory MM (Review).” International journal of molecular medicine (2024). PMID: 39670288 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[169]
Lytvynova O, Jwayyed J, Pastel D et al.. “Insights from Clinical Trials: Evidence-Based Recommendations for Induction Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Transplant-Eligible Multiple Myeloma.” Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) (2024). PMID: 39449322 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[170]
Gordan LN, Medhekar R, Fu AZ et al.. “Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.” Hematological oncology (2025). PMID: 40207704 ↗
Journal Article, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, Comparative StudyCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[171]
Ludwig H, Terpos E, Gay F et al.. “The Changing Landscape of Maintenance Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of the European Myeloma Network (EMN).” American journal of hematology (2026). PMID: 42315477 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[172]
McCaughan G, Beer H, Bryant C et al.. “Management of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation: position statement of the Medical and Scientific Advisory Group of Myeloma Australia.” Internal medicine journal (2025). PMID: 40760870 ↗
Journal Article, Consensus StatementCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[173]
Fonseca R, Rossi A, Medhekar R et al.. “Clinical consensus on treatments for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: double-blinded Delphi panel.” Future oncology (London, England) (2024). PMID: 38861282 ↗
Journal Article, Consensus StatementCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[174]
Kaiser M, Pratt G, Bygrave C et al.. “Diagnosis and initial treatment of transplant-eligible high-risk myeloma patients: A British Society for Haematology/UK Myeloma Society Good Practice Paper.” British journal of haematology (2024). PMID: 38952046 ↗
Journal Article, Practice Guideline, ReviewCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[175]
Kumar SK, Callander NS, Adekola K et al.. “Multiple Myeloma, Version 2.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2023). PMID: 38081133 ↗
Journal Article, Practice GuidelineCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[176]
Yin J, Liu R, Zhang Y et al.. “Validation and prognostic utility of the mSMART 4.0 risk stratification system in Chinese patients with multiple myeloma.” BMC cancer (2026). PMID: 42458324 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[177]
Ravi G, Dhakal B, Callander NS et al.. “Redefining functional high-risk multiple myeloma in the context of upfront quadruplet therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation.” Cancer (2026). PMID: 42473325 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Prognosis and Prognostic Factors, Special Populations
[178]
Mariotti EG, Kumar S, Gonsalves W et al.. “Cytogenetics-based clinical trajectories in patients with MRD negativity post autologous transplant for multiple myeloma.” Leukemia (2026). PMID: 42481797 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[179]
Yu J, Chen Q, Shi M et al.. “Prognostic significance of dynamic minimal residual disease trajectories in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.” British journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 42481078 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[180]
Bolarinwa A, Zanwar SS, Abdallah N et al.. “Predictors of post-transplant measurable residual disease negativity and impact on clinical outcomes in multiple myeloma.” Blood advances (2026). PMID: 42508994 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[181]
Zhang Z, Derman B, Wang B et al.. “Prognostic Significance of Cell-Free DNA Derived 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine Signatures in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.” JCO precision oncology (2026). PMID: 42492029 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[182]
Zhan H, Lai J, Chen J et al.. “Identification of exhausted CD8+ T-cell signatures for prognosis in multiple myeloma by integrated analysis of single-cell and bulk RNA-sequencing.” Translational cancer research (2026). PMID: 42445381 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[183]
Peluso S, Polizzi S, Pagnini L et al.. “Automated Deauville Score computation from baseline [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT predicts progression-free survival in multiple myeloma: a radiogenomic framework.” European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging (2026). PMID: 42530578 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[184]
van der Weg K, Bertschinger M, Bacher U et al.. “Low-Frequency PPM1D Gene Mutations Affect Treatment Response to BCMA-Targeted CAR T-Cell Therapy in Multiple Myeloma.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 42449578 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[185]
Zhang J, Xu D, Luo R et al.. “Association of the triglyceride-glucose index with tumor burden in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A retrospective cross-sectional study.” Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry (2026). PMID: 42462872 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Prognosis and Prognostic Factors
[186]
Abdallah N, Marar R, Yee CI et al.. “Self-Reported Geriatric Impairments and Treatment Toxicity in Older Patients with Multiple Myeloma-A Single Center Prospective Study.” Blood advances (2026). PMID: 42508993 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Special Populations
[187]
Jung SH, Kim D, Lee JJ et al.. “Prospective, multicentre phase II study to evaluate the clinical benefit of reduced-dose lenalidomide and dexamethasone based on frailty stratification in elderly, unfit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.” British journal of haematology (2026). PMID: 42397033 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Special Populations
[188]
Wakefield C, Marcoux C, Milton DR et al.. “A Simplified Frailty Score Predicts Outcomes in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Undergoing Upfront Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.” Transplantation and cellular therapy (2026). PMID: 42409352 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Special Populations
[189]
Muddasani A, Thanendrarajan S, Zangari M et al.. “Efficacy and Safety of CAR-T Cell Therapy and Bispecific Antibodies in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma with Renal Impairment: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 42512374 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Special Populations
[190]
Bălăceanu LA, Tiron AT, Baboi ID et al.. “Cardiovascular Comorbidities and Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease in Hospitalized Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.” Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) (2026). PMID: 42346306 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Special Populations
[191]
Kang M, Choi S, Park SS et al.. “A Simulation-Based Assessment of Dosage Regimen Appropriateness for Multiple Myeloma Medicines Reflecting Demographic and Ethnic Differences.” Clinical and translational science (2026). PMID: 42515832 ↗
Journal Article, Comparative StudyCited in: Special Populations
[192]
Spataro F, Desantis V, Dicuonzo G et al.. “Real-world evidence on infection risk in multiple myeloma treated with BiTEs and CAR-T cells: a meta-analysis.” Experimental hematology & oncology (2026). PMID: 42323640 ↗
LetterCited in: Special Populations
[193]
Sindarreh S, Dormiani Tabatabaei SA, Sharifi M et al.. “Risk Factors for Mortality Associated With Influenza Infection in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Observational Study.” Health science reports (2026). PMID: 42504237 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Special Populations
[194]
Brusa S, D'Angelo D, D'Ambrosio G et al.. “False-positive HIV-1 RNA detection after CAR-T cell therapy in a multiple myeloma patient: multi-assay comparison confirms dual-target cross-reactivity.” Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease (2026). PMID: 42492169 ↗
Case Reports, Journal ArticleCited in: Special Populations
[195]
Nakaa S, Caillot L, Chermak A et al.. “Improved survival in patients admitted to ICU with multiple myeloma: a retrospective cohort analysis.” Annals of intensive care (2026). PMID: 42403522 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Special Populations
[196]
Le Cacheux C, Bastien M, Le Thuaut A et al.. “Characterization and outcomes of severe complications after autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: a retrospective multicenter study.” Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (2026). PMID: 42348046 ↗
Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Observational StudyCited in: Special Populations
[197]
Matsamakis N, Berry M, Buehler J et al.. “Limited lenalidomide exposure and access to rescue plerixafor can eliminate haemopoietic progenitor cell collection failure in multiple myeloma patients treated with bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone.” Internal medicine journal (2026). PMID: 42412621 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Special Populations
[198]
Xu X, Xu M, Dong R et al.. “Plerixafor Plus G-CSF Versus Etoposide Combined With Cyclophosphamide and G-CSF for Autologous Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma in the Era of Novel Agents: A Single Center Observational Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.” Journal of clinical apheresis (2026). PMID: 42348157 ↗
Journal Article, Observational Study, Comparative StudyCited in: Special Populations
[199]
Du S, Peng J, Zhang T et al.. “Trends and Disparities in Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Utilization, Inpatient Mortality, Length of Stay, and Costs in the United States (2017 to 2022).” Transplantation and cellular therapy (2026). PMID: 42315023 ↗
Journal ArticleCited in: Special Populations
[200]
Raab MS, Weinhold N, Kortüm KM et al.. “Teclistamab-based induction treatment in transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a phase 2 trial.” Nature medicine (2026). PMID: 42350642 ↗
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Phase IICited in: Special Populations
[201]
Matsumura N. “PMDA regulatory update on approval and revision of the precautions for use of anticancer drugs in Japan; camizestrant for breast cancer, ivosidenib for biliary tract cancer, subcutaneous isatuximab and talquetamab plus teclistamab for multiple myeloma, isotretinoin for neuroblastoma, selpercatinib for pediatric RET-altered tumors, tafasitamab for lymphoma, and tislelizumab and durvalumab for gastric cancer.” International journal of clinical oncology (2026). PMID: 42377814 ↗
EditorialCited in: Special Populations
[202]
Mohammed Saleh MF, Abdrabou A, Alnughmush A et al.. “Bendamustine-based lymphodepletion prior to CAR T-cell therapy: a systematic review.” Bone marrow transplantation (2026). PMID: 42332219 ↗
Journal Article, ReviewCited in: Special Populations