Recent advances in the management of multiple myeloma: clinical impact based on resource-stratification. Consensus statement of the Asian Myeloma Network at the 16th international myeloma workshop

References

• Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2893–2917.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim K, Lee JH, Kim JS, et al. Clinical profiles of multiple myeloma in Asia – An Asian Myeloma Network study. Am J Hematol. 2014;89:751–756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson BO, Yip CH, Smith RA, et al. Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries: overview of the Breast Health Global Initiative Global Summit 2007. Cancer 2008;113:2221–2243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan D, Chng WJ, Chou T, et al. Management of multiple myeloma in Asia: resource-stratified guidelines. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e571–e581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, et al. Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients. Leukemia 2014;28:1122–1128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e538–e548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, et al. Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2863–2869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chng WJ, Dispenzieri A, Chim CS, et al. IMWG consensus on risk stratification in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2014;28:269–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e328–e346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Go RS, Bartley AC, Crowson CS, et al. Association between treatment facility volume and mortality of patients with multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:598–604. 3rd.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kastritis E, Terpos E, Moulopoulos L, et al. Extensive bone marrow infiltration and abnormal free light chain ratio identifies patients with asymptomatic myeloma at high risk for progression to symptomatic disease. Leukemia 2013;27:947–953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen JT, Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, et al. Serum free light chain ratio as a biomarker for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2013;27:941–946.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Weber MA, et al. Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1606–1610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mateos M-V, Hernandez M-T, Giraldo P, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:438–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigurdardottir EE, Turesson I, Lund SH, et al. The role of diagnosis and clinical follow-up of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance on survival in multiple myeloma. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:168–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajkumar SV, Fonseca R, Dispenzieri A, et al. Methods for estimation of bone marrow plasma cell involvement in myeloma: predictive value for response and survival in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. Am J Hematol. 2001;68:269–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos MA, Sonneveld P, Leung N, et al. International myeloma working group recommendations for the diagnosis and management of myeloma-related renal impairment. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1544–1557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regelink JC, Minnema MC, Terpos E, et al. Comparison of modern and conventional imaging techniques in establishing multiple myeloma-related bone disease: a systematic review. Br J Haematol. 2013;162:50–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonseca R, Barlogie B, Bataille R, et al. Genetics and cytogenetics of multiple myeloma: a workshop report. Cancer Res. 2004;64:1546–1558.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3412–3420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avet-Loiseau H, Durie BG, Cavo M, et al. Combining fluorescent in situ hybridization data with ISS staging improves risk assessment in myeloma: an International Myeloma Working Group collaborative project. Leukemia 2013;27:711–717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau P, Cavo M, Sonneveld P, et al. Combination of international scoring system 3, high lactate dehydrogenase, and t(4;14) and/or del(17p) identifies patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with front-line autologous stem-cell transplantation at high risk of early MM progression-related death. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2173–2180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terpos E, Katodritou E, Roussou M, et al. High serum lactate dehydrogenase adds prognostic value to the international myeloma staging system even in the era of novel agents. Eur J Haematol. 2010;85:114–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chng WJ, Chung TH, Kumar S, et al. Gene signature combinations improve prognostic stratification of multiple myeloma patients. Leukemia 2016;30:1071–1078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuiper R, Mark van Duin Martin H, van Vlietet, et al. Prediction of high- and low-risk multiple myeloma based on gene expression and the International Staging System. Blood 2015;126:1996–2004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker BA, Boyle EM, Wardell CP, et al. Mutational spectrum, copy number changes, and outcome: results of a sequencing study of patients with newly diagnosed Myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3911–3920.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan D, Teoh G, Lau LC, et al. An abnormal nonhyperdiploid karyotype is a significant adverse prognostic factor for multiple myeloma in the bortezomib era. Am J Hematol. 2010;85:752–756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaji Kumar MD, Ravi Vij MD, Jonathan L, et al. Venetoclax monotherapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: safety and efficacy results from a phase I study. Blood 2016;128:488.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sonneveld P, Avet-Loiseau H, Lonial S, et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood 2016;127:2955–2962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-Lopez J, Blade J, Mateos MV, et al. Long-term prognostic significance of response in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Blood 2011;118:529–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majithia N, Rajkumar SV, Lacy MQ, et al. Early relapse following initial therapy for multiple myeloma predicts poor outcomes in the era of novel agents. Leukemia 2016;30:2208–2213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajkumar SV, Harousseau JL, Durie B, et al. Consensus recommendations for the uniform reporting of clinical trials: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1. Blood 2011;117:4691–4695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paiva B, van Dongen JJ, Orfao A. New criteria for response assessment: role of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Blood 2015;125:3059–3068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landgren O, Iskander K. Modern multiple myeloma therapy: deep, sustained treatment response and good clinical outcomes. J Intern Med. 2017;281:365–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landgren O, Devlin S, Boulad M, et al. Role of MRD status in relation to clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: a meta-analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51:1565–1568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores-Montero J, Saboja-Flores L, Paiva B, et al. Next generation flow for highly sensitive and standardized detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2017;31:2094–2103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bai Y, Wong KY, Fung TK, et al. High applicability of ASO-RQPCR for detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma by entirely patient-specific primers/probes. J Hematol Oncol. 2016;9:107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avet-Loiseau H. Minimal residual disease by next-generation sequencing: pros and cons. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2015;35:e425–e430.
   Google Scholar
• Martinez-Lopez J, Lahuerta JJ, Pepin F, et al. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood 2014;123:3073–3079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 2011;118:5989–5995.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nanni C, Zamagni E, Versari A, et al. Image interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma: a new proposal from an Italian expert panel. IMPeTUs (Italian Myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;43:414–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraioli F, Punwani S. Clinical and research applications of simultaneous positron emission tomography and MRI. Br J Radiol. 2014;87:20130464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pawlyn C, Fowkes L, Otero S, et al. Whole-body diff usion-weighted MRI: a new gold standard for assessing disease burden in patients with multiple myeloma? Leukemia 2016;30:1446–1448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCudden CR, Voorhees PM, Hainsworth SA, et al. Interference of monoclonal antibody therapies with serum protein electrophoresis tests. Clin Chem. 2010;56:1897–1899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walz S, Stickel JS, Kowalewski DJ, et al. The antigenic landscape of multiple myeloma: mass spectrometry (re)defines targets for T-cell-based immunotherapy. Blood 2015;126:1203–1213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axel AE, McCudden CR, Xie H, et al. Development of clinical assay to mitigate daratumumab, an IgG1κ monoclonal antibody, interference with serum immunofi xation (IFE) and clinical assessment of M-protein response in multiple myeloma. Cancer Res. 2014;74:2563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavo M, Rajkumar SV, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus approach to the treatment of multiple myeloma patients who are candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 2011;117:6063–6073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavo M, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, et al. Bortezomib with thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus dexamethasone as induction therapy before, and consolidation therapy after, double autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomised phase 3 study. Lancet. 2010;376:2075–2085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosinol L, Oriol A, Teruel AI, et al. Superiority of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) as induction pretransplantation therapy in multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 3 PETHEMA/GEM study. Blood 2012;120:1589–1596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau P, Attal M, Facon T. Frontline therapy of multiple myeloma. Blood 2015;125:3076–3084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson GH, Davies FE, Pawlyn C, et al. Response adapted induction treatment improves outcomes for myeloma patients; results of the phase III Myeloma XI study. Blood 2016;128:1854.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Palumbo A, Cavallo F, Gay F, et al. Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:895–905.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michele C, Antonio P, Sonja Z, et al. Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) versus novel agent-based therapy for multiple myeloma (MM): a randomized phase 3 study of the European Myeloma Network (EMN02/HO95 MM trial). J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:8000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1311–1320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavo M, Tosi P, Zamagni E, et al. Prospective, randomized study of single compared with double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: bologna 96 clinical study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2434–2441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavo M, Salwender H, Rosiñol L, et al. Double Vs single autologous stem cell transplantation after bortezomib-based induction regimens for multiple myeloma: an integrated analysis of patient-level data from phase European III studies. Blood 2013;122:767.
   Google Scholar
• Cavo M, Petrucci MT,D, Raimondo, et al. Upfront single versus double autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an intergroup, multicenter, phase iii study of the European myeloma network (EMN02/HO95 MM Trial). Blood 2016;128:991.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadtmauer EA, Pasquini MC, Blackwell B, et al. Comparison of autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT), bortezomib, lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone (RVD) consolidation with Len maintenance (ACM), tandem Autohct with Len maintenance (TAM) and Autohct with Len maintenance (AM) for up-front treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM): primary results from the randomized phase III trial of the blood and marrow transplant clinical trials network (BMT CTN 0702 – StaMINA Trial). Blood 2016;128:LBA–LB1-LBA.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Marit G, et al. Lenalidomide maintenance after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1782–1791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy PL, Owzar K, Hofmeister CC, et al. Lenalidomide after stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1770–1781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attal M, Palumbo A, Holstein SA, et al. Lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance (MNTC) after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM): a meta-analysis (MA) of overall survival (OS). J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:8001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig H, Durie BGM, McCarthy P, et al. IMWG consensus on maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. Blood 2012;119:3003–3015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lokhorst H, Einsele H, Vesole D, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus statement regarding the current status of allogeneic stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol.2010;28:4521–4530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359:906–917.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dispenzieri A. Myeloma: management of the newly diagnosed high-risk patient. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2016;(1):485–494.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tan D, Kim K, Kim JS, et al. The impact of upfront versus sequential use of bortezomib among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM): a joint analysis of the Singapore MM Study Group and the Korean MM Working Party for the Asian myeloma network. Leukemia Res. 2013;37:1070–1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Mateos M-V, et al. Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: an International Myeloma Working Group report. Blood 2015;125:2068–2074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhardt M, Dold SM, Ihorst G, et al. Geriatric assessment in multiple myeloma patients: validation of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) score and comparison with other common comorbidity scores. Haematologica 2016;101:1110–1119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose JH, O’Toole EE, Dawson NV, et al. Perspectives, preferences, care practices, and outcomes among older and middle-aged patients with late-stage cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4907–4917.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durie BG, Hoering A, Abidi MH, et al. Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017;389:519–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapoor P, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, et al. Melphalan and prednisone versus melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide for elderly and/or transplant ineligible patients with multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. Leukemia 2011;25:689–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benboubker L, Dimopoulos MA, Dispenzieri A, et al. Lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:906–917.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu J, Lee JH, Huang SY, et al. Continuous treatment with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in Asia: subanalysis of the FIRST trial. Br J Haematol. 2017;176:743–749.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magarotto V, Bringhen S, Offidani M, et al. Triplet vs doublet lenalidomide-containing regimens for the treatment of elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2016;127:1102–1108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Larocca A, et al. Bortezomib-melphalanprednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance with bortezomib thalidomide compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and improved survival. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:634–640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mateos MV, Oriol A, Martínez-Lo’pez J, et al. Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and prednisone as induction therapy followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib and thalidomide versus bortezomib and prednisone in elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:934–941.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palumbo A, Gay F, Cavallo F, et al. Continuous therapy versus fixed duration of therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3459–3466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Kumar SK, et al. Second primary malignancies with lenalidomide therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:333–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zweegman S, van der Hold B, Mellqvist UH, et al. Randomized phase III trial in non-transplant eligible patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma comparing melphalan-prednisonethalidomide followed by thalidomide maintenance (MPT-T) versus melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide followed by maintenance with lenalidomide (MPR-R); a joint study of the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology (HOVON) and the Nordic Myeloma Study Group (NMSG). Blood 2014;124:179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart AK, Jacobus SJ, Fonseca R, et al. E1A06: a phase III trial comparing melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) versus melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:8511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laubach J, Garderet L, Mahindra A, et al. Management of relapsed multiple myeloma: recommendations of the International Myeloma Working Group. Leukemia 2016;30:1005–1017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Campion L, et al. Long-term analysis of the IFM 99 trials for myeloma: cytogenetic abnormalities [t(4;14), del(17p), 1q gains] play a major role in defining long-term survival. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1949–1952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonneveld P, Verelst SG, Lewis P, et al. Review of health-related quality of life data in multiple myeloma patients treated with novel agents. Leukemia 2013;27:1959–1969.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Gertz MA, et al. Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low dose dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is active and well tolerated in lenalidomide refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Leukemia 2010;24:1934–1939.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berenson JR, Hilger JD, Yellin O, et al. Replacement of bortezomib with carfilzomib for multiple myeloma patients progressing from bortezomib combination therapy. Leukemia 2014;28:1529–1536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi A, Mark T, Jayabalan D, et al. BiRd (clarithromycin, lenalidomide, dexamethasone): an update on long-term lenalidomide therapy in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2013;121:1982–1985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh N, Tucker N, Zahurak M, et al. Clarithromycin overcomes resistance to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol 2014;89:E116–E120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook G, Ashcroft AJ, Cairns DA, et al. National Cancer Research Institute Haemato-oncology Clinical Studies Group. The effect of salvage autologous stem-cell transplantation on overall survival in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (final results from BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X Relapse [Intensive]): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2016;3:e340–e351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos M, Spencer A, Attal M, et al. Multiple Myeloma (010) Study Investigators. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2009;361(5): 544]. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2123–2132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos MA, Moreau P, Palumbo A, et al. ENDEAVOR investigators. Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:27–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palumbo A, Chanan-Khan A, Weisel K, et al. Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:754–766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos AM, Oriol A, Nahi H, et al. Daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1319–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonial S, Dimopoulos M, Palumbo A, et al. Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:621–631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• San-Miguel JF, Hungria VT, Yoon SS, et al. Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind phase 3 trial [published correction appears in Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(1):e6]. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1195–1206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlogie B, Anaissie E, van Rhee F, et al. Incorporating bortezomib into upfront treatment for multiple myeloma: early results of total therapy 3. Br J Haematol. 2007;138:176–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingli D, Arendt BK, Bajzer Z, et al. Evolutionary dynamics of two related malignant plasma cell lines. Cell Cycle. 2010;9:3792–3797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD/WHO (2014). Health expenditure per capita and in relation to GDP. In: Health at a Glance: Asia/Pacific 2014: Measuring Progress towards Universal Health Coverage. Paris: OECD Publishing. Health at a glance: Asia pacific region. WHO 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Kanavos P, Vandoros S, Garcia-Gonzalez P. Benefits of global partnerships to facilitate access to medicines in developing countries: a multi-country analysis of patients and patient outcomes in GIPAP. Global Health. 2009;5:19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar L, Sahoo R. Management of multiple myeloma in resource-constrained settings. Semin Oncol. 2016;43:690–694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes G, de L. Cost comparison and economic implications of commonly used originator and generic chemotherapy drugs in India. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:v13–v16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mookerjee A, Gupta R, Jasrotia S, et al. Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (VRD) versus Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Ld) for newly-diagnosed Multiple myeloma – A Randomized phase III study-Interim Results. Abstract # OP-009. Presented at the 16th International Myeloma Workshop; New Delhi, India; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Yanamandra U, Khattry N, Kumar S, et al. Consensus in the management of multiple myeloma in india at myeloma state of the art 2016 conference. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2017;33:15–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evens AM, Jovanovic BD, Su YC, et al. Rituximab-associated hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in lymphoproliferative diseases: meta-analysis and examination of FDA safety reports. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1170–1180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeo W, Chan TC, Leung NW, et al. Hepatitis B virus reactivation in lymphoma patients with prior resolved hepatitis B undergoing anticancer therapy with or without rituximab. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:605–611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang YH, Hsiao LT, Hong YC, et al. Randomized controlled trial of entecavir prophylaxis for rituximab-associated hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with lymphoma and resolved hepatitis B. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2765–2772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim IK, Kim BG, Kim W, et al. Clinical prediction of failure of lamivudine prophylaxis for hepatitis B virus-infected patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:5511–5519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar