Osteonecrosis of the jaw and renal safety in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study results

Does medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw affect survival of patients with Multiple Myeloma?: Exploring a large single center database using artificial intelligence

In addition to randomized clinical trials, consideration of Real-World Evidence is necessary for mirroring clinical reality. However, processing such evidence for large numbers of patients often requires considerable time and effort. This is particularly true for rare tumor diseases such as multiple myeloma (MM) or for adverse effects that occur even more rarely. In such cases, artificial intelligence is able to efficiently detect patients with rare conditions. One of these rare adverse events, and the most discussed, following bone protective treatment in MM is medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). The association of bone protective treatment to MM outcome has been intensively studied. However, the impact of MRONJ resulting from such treatment on MM prognosis and outcome is poorly understood. In this retrospective study, we therefore investigated the long-term effects of MRONJ. We used natural language processing (NLP) to screen individual data of 2389 MM patients to find 50 out of 52 patients with MRONJ matching our inclusion criteria. To further improve data quality, we then performed propensity score matching. In comparison to MM patients without MRONJ, we found a significantly longer overall survival (median 126 vs. 86 months) despite slightly worse clinical features.

Incidence and risk factors associated to Medication-Related Osteo Necrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ) in patients with osteoporosis after tooth extractions. A 12-months observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 12-months incidence of MRONJ after tooth extractions and possible related risk factors in patients with osteoporosis treated by means of oral bisphosphonates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-five records of osteoporotic patients on therapy with oral bisphosphonates and treated with at least one dental extraction at the Department of Oral Surgery of University of Naples Federico II were selected. All patients were treated using a standardized surgical extraction protocol. At baseline and after 12-months follow-up, the following variables were recorded: "mucosal healing", "gender", "type of drug"; "duration of therapy"; "drug holiday". The collected data were analyzed and a linear regression analysis was performed to assess a possible correlation with onset MRONJ.

RESULTS

A total of 159 tooth extraction in 43 females (95.6%) and in 2 males (4.4%) with a mean age of 67.5 ± 3 years were available for the analysis. The majority part of patients was on therapy with alendronate (23; 51.2%), 11 patients (24.4%) were treated with risedronate and 11 (24.4%) with ibandronate. Before oral surgery, 84% of the patients showed a low-medium risk of MRONJ, while in 16% of the patients a medium-high risk was recorded. After 12-months follow-up, osteonecrosis was observed in 1 patient, with an overall incidence of MRONJ of 0.6%. The linear regression showed a significant correlation with MRONJ onset only for "gender" variable, with a R² of 0.489.

CONCLUSIONS

Within their limitations, the outcomes of the study indicate that the risk of MRONJ after tooth extraction in osteoporotic patients taking bisphosphonates for OS is very low. A prolonged and specific antibiotic and antiseptic therapy, in addition to a surgical procedure as little traumatic as possible, will allow to perform oral surgery safely.

American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons' Position Paper on Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws-2022 Update

Strategies for management of patients with, or at risk for, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) - formerly referred to as bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ)-were set forth in the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) position papers in 2007, 2009 and 2014. The position papers were developed by a committee appointed by the AAOMS Board of Trustees and comprising clinicians with extensive experience in caring for these patients, as well as clinical and basic science researchers. The knowledge base and experience in addressing MRONJ continues to evolve and expand, necessitating modifications and refinements to the previous position papers. Three members of the AAOMS Committee on Oral, Head, and Neck Oncologic and Reconstructive Surgery (COHNORS) and three authors of the 2014 position paper were appointed to serve as a working group to analyze the current literature and revise the guidance as indicated to reflect current knowledge in this field. This update contains revisions to diagnosis and management strategies and highlights the current research status. AAOMS maintains that it is vitally important for this information to be disseminated to other relevant healthcare professionals and organizations.

Small Extracellular Vesicles Derived from Adipose Tissue Prevent Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw by Promoting Angiogenesis

Purpose

There is no definitive treatment for bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ). Small extracellular vesicles derived from adipose tissue (sEV-AT) have been proved efficient at promoting tissue regeneration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of sEV-AT administration on BRONJ-like lesions in rats.

Methods

Zoledronate (Zol) and dexamethasone (Dex) were subcutaneously administered to create a BRONJ rat model. Rats were randomly divided into three groups: 1) Control; 2) Zol+Dex; 3) sEV-AT. The maxillary left first molars were extracted two weeks after the first administration. In the sEV-AT group, sEV-AT were given intravenously every three days right after tooth extraction. We preformed occlusal view images, microcomputed tomography (µCT) and histological analysis to measure the regeneration of osseous and soft tissue in extraction sockets. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) were isolated and cultured with endothelial cell medium (ECM). HUVECs were then divided into three groups: 1) Control: ECM; 2) Zol: ECM+Zol; 3) sEV-AT: ECM+Zol+sEV-AT. We evaluated the proliferation, tube formation and migration of HUVECs in each group.

Results

Rats treated with Zol+Dex showed BRONJ-like lesions including open wounds, necrotic bones, empty osteocyte lacunae and reduced osteoclasts. sEV-AT administration reduced BRONJ-like lesions by promoting soft tissue healing. µCT results showed that bone volume in extraction sockets in the sEV-AT group was larger than the Zol+Dex group. Histological analysis showed less necrotic bones and empty osteocyte lacunae in the sEV-AT group compared to the Zol+Dex group. Histological analysis also showed more osteoclasts, collagen fibers and blood vessels in the sEV-AT group compared to the Zol+Dex group. Furthermore, sEV-AT enhanced the proliferation, migration and tube formation of HUVECs which were inhibited by Zol.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that sEV-AT prevent BRONJ in rats. Angiogenesis promotion contributes to the prevention of BRONJ.

Treatment of multiple myeloma-related bone disease: recommendations from the Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group

In this Policy Review, the Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group updates its clinical practice recommendations for the management of multiple myeloma-related bone disease. After assessing the available literature and grading recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) method, experts from the working group recommend zoledronic acid as the preferred bone-targeted agent for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, with or without multiple myeloma-related bone disease. Once patients achieve a very good partial response or better, after receiving monthly zoledronic acid for at least 12 months, the treating physician can consider decreasing the frequency of or discontinuing zoledronic acid treatment. Denosumab can also be considered for the treatment of multiple myeloma-related bone disease, particularly in patients with renal impairment. Denosumab might prolong progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who have multiple myeloma-related bone disease and who are eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Denosumab discontinuation is challenging due to the rebound effect. The Bone Working Group of the International Myeloma Working Group also found cement augmentation to be effective for painful vertebral compression fractures. Radiotherapy is recommended for uncontrolled pain, impeding or symptomatic spinal cord compression, or pathological fractures. Surgery should be used for the prevention and restoration of long-bone pathological fractures, vertebral column instability, and spinal cord compression with bone fragments within the spinal route.

Multiple Myeloma, Version 3.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Multiple myeloma is a malignant neoplasm of plasma cells that accumulate in bone marrow, leading to bone destruction and marrow failure. This manuscript discusses the management of patients with solitary plasmacytoma, smoldering multiple myeloma, and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Controversies in the use of new bone-modifying therapies in multiple myeloma

Bone-modifying therapies are essential in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. Zoledronic acid is preferred over other bisphosphonates due to its superiority in reducing the incidence of skeletal-related events and improving survival. The anti-receptor activator of nuclear factor-κΒ ligand (RANKL)-targeted agent denosumab has shown its non-inferiority compared to bisphosphonates in preventing skeletal-related events among newly diagnosed patients with myeloma bone disease. Denosumab may confer a survival benefit in patients eligible for autologous transplantation. Denosumab may present a safer profile for patients with renal impairment. Discontinuation of bone-directed therapies can be considered for patients with deep responses and after an adequate time period on treatment; however, a rebound effect may become evident especially in the case of denosumab. Three-monthly infusions of zoledronic acid or at-home denosumab administration should be considered during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Measures to prevent hypocalcaemia, renal toxicity and osteonecrosis of the jaw are important for all bone-modifying agents.

Multiple Myeloma Associated Bone Disease

The lytic bone disease is a hallmark of multiple myeloma, being present in about 80% of patients with newly diagnosed MM, and in more during the disease course. The myeloma associated bone disease (MBD) severely affects the morbidity and quality of life of the patients. MBD defines treatment demanding MM. In recent years, knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology has increased, and novel imaging technologies, medical and non-pharmaceutical treatments have improved. In this review, we highlight the major achievements in understanding, diagnosing and treating MBD. For diagnosing MBD, low-dose whole-body CT is now recommended over conventional skeletal survey, but also more advanced functional imaging modalities, such as diffusion-weighted MRI and PET/CT are increasingly important in the assessment and monitoring of MBD. Bisphosphonates have, for many years, played a key role in management of MBD, but denosumab is now an alternative to bisphosphonates, especially in patients with renal impairment. Radiotherapy is used for uncontrolled pain, for impeding fractures and in treatment of impeding or symptomatic spinal cord compression. Cement augmentation has been shown to reduce pain from vertebral compression fractures. Cautious exercise programs are safe and feasible and may have the potential to improve the status of patients with MM.

Response to Comment-Osteonecrosis of the Jaw in Myeloma Patients Receiving Denosumab or Zoledronic Acid. Comment on Pivotal Trial by Raje et al. Published in Lancet Oncology

We read the commentary by Fusco et al [...].

Side effects of drugs for osteoporosis and metastatic bone disease

Osteoporosis is a common condition that leads to substantial morbidity and mortality and affects an increasing number of persons worldwide. Several pharmacological therapies that inhibit bone resorption, promote bone formation, or both, are available for the treatment of osteoporosis. The osteoanabolic treatment spectrum was recently expanded by the introduction of a novel bone-forming agent in the United States, and clinical trials indicate that a new class of bone anabolic therapy may become available. Both antiresorptive and bone anabolic therapies are associated with common and rare adverse effects, which are particularly important to address as these drugs are used for long-term treatment in numerous patients with a large proportion being elderly and/or having multimorbidity. In addition, antiresorptive drugs are used to inhibit bone resorption in patients with malignant hypercalcaemia or to prevent skeletal events in cancer patients, and bisphosphonates have been repurposed as a cancer preventive therapy. However, therapeutic doses are generally higher when antiresorptive drugs are used in the oncological setting, which influence the prevalence of adverse effects significantly. This review highlights key issues and controversies regarding adverse effects of currently available and emerging drugs used for osteoporosis and metastatic bone diseases.

Bisphosphonate guidelines for treatment and prevention of myeloma bone disease

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a haematological malignancy characterised by the clonal proliferation of plasma cells in the bone marrow. More than 80% of patients with MM display evidence of myeloma bone disease (MBD), characterised by the formation of osteolytic lesions throughout the axial and appendicular skeleton. MBD significantly increases the risk of skeletal-related events such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression and hypercalcaemia. MBD is the result of MM plasma cells-mediated activation of osteoclast activity and suppression of osteoblast activity. Bisphosphonates (BP), pyrophosphate analogues with high bone affinity, are the only pharmacological agents currently recommended for the treatment and prevention of MBD and remain the standard of care. Pamidronate and zoledronic acid are the most commonly used BP to treat MBD. Although generally safe, frequent high doses of BP are associated with adverse events such as renal toxicity and osteonecrosis of the jaw. As such, optimal duration and dosing of BP therapy is required in order to minimise BP-associated adverse events. The following guidelines provide currently available evidence for the adoption of a tailored approach when using BP for the management of MBD.

Role of Bone-Modifying Agents in Multiple Myeloma: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Purpose To update guideline recommendations on the role of bone-modifying agents in multiple myeloma. Methods An update panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review by searching PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and observational studies. Results Thirty-five relevant studies were identified, and updated evidence supports the current recommendations. Recommendations For patients with active symptomatic multiple myeloma that requires systemic therapy with or without evidence of lytic destruction of bone or compression fracture of the spine from osteopenia on plain radiograph(s) or other imaging studies, intravenous administration of pamidronate 90 mg over at least 2 hours or zoledronic acid 4 mg over at least 15 minutes every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended. Denosumab has shown to be noninferior to zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events and provides an alternative. Fewer adverse events related to renal toxicity have been noted with denosumab compared with zoledronic acid and may be preferred in this setting. The update panel recommends that clinicians consider reducing the initial pamidronate dose in patients with preexisting renal impairment. Zoledronic acid has not been studied in patients with severe renal impairment and is not recommended in this setting. The update panel suggests that bone-modifying treatment continue for up to 2 years. Less frequent dosing has been evaluated and should be considered in patients with responsive or stable disease. Continuous use is at the discretion of the treating physician and the risk of ongoing skeletal morbidity. Retreatment should be initiated at the time of disease relapse. The update panel discusses measures regarding osteonecrosis of the jaw. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma: an updated network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and are used in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While bisphosphonates are shown to be effective in reducing vertebral fractures and pain, their role in improving overall survival (OS) remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2010 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence related to benefits and harms associated with use of various types of bisphosphonates (aminobisphosphonates versus non-aminobisphosphonates) in the management of patients with MM. Our primary objective was to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in MM improves OS and progression-free survival (PFS), and decreases skeletal-related morbidity. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life, incidence of hypercalcemia, incidence of bisphosphonate-related gastrointestinal toxicities, osteonecrosis of jaw (ONJ) and hypocalcemia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase (September 2011 to July 2017) and the CENTRAL (2017, Issue 7) to identify all randomized controlled trial (RCT) in MM up to July 2017 using a combination of text and MeSH terms.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo/no treatment/bisphosphonates and observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonate-related ONJ in patients with MM were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted the data. Data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) using a random-effects model. We used meta-regression to explore statistical heterogeneity. Network meta-analysis using Bayesian approach was conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included four new studies (601 participants), resulting in a total of 24 included studies.Twenty RCTs compared bisphosphonates with either placebo or no treatment and four RCTs involved another bisphosphonate as a comparator. The 24 included RCTs enrolled 7293 participants. Pooled results showed that there was moderate-quality evidence of a reduction in mortality with on OS from 41% to 31%, but the confidence interval is consistent with a larger reduction and small increase in mortality compared with placebo or no treatment (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; 14 studies; 2706 participants). There was substantial heterogeneity among the included RCTs (I2 = 65%) for OS. To explain this heterogeneity we performed a meta-regression assessing the relationship between bisphosphonate potency and improvement in OS, which found an OS benefit with zoledronate but limited evidence of an effect on PFS. This provided a further rationale for performing a network meta-analyses of the various types of bisphosphonates that were not compared head-to-head in RCTs. Results from network meta-analyses showed evidence of a benefit for OS with zoledronate compared with etidronate (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87) and placebo (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.91). However, there was no evidence for a difference between zoledronate and other bisphosphonates.The effect of bisphosphonates on disease progression (PFS) is uncertain. Based on the HR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; seven studies; 908 participants), 47% participants would experience disease progression without treatment compared with between 30% and 47% with bisphosphonates (low-quality evidence). There is probably a similar risk of non-vertebral fractures between treatment groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; six studies; 1389 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated evidence for a difference favoring bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; seven studies; 1116 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and skeletal-related events (SREs) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88; 10 studies; 2141 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence for less pain with bisphosphonates was of very low quality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; eight studies; 1281 participants).Bisphosphonates may increase ONJ compared with placebo but the confidence interval is very wide (RR 4.61, 95% CI 0.99 to 21.35; P = 0.05; six studies; 1284 participants; low-quality evidence). The results from the network meta-analysis did not show any evidence for a difference in the incidence of ONJ (eight RCTs, 3746 participants) between bisphosphonates. Data from nine observational studies (1400 participants) reported an incidence of 5% to 51% with combination of pamidronate and zoledronate, 3% to 11% with zoledronate alone, and 0% to 18% with pamidronate alone.The pooled results showed no evidence for a difference in increase in frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59; seven studies; 1829 participants; low-quality evidence).The pooled results showed no evidence for a difference in increase in frequency of hypocalcemia with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.74; three studies; 1090 participants; low-quality evidence). The results from network meta-analysis did not show any evidence for differences in the incidence of hypocalcemia, renal dysfunction and gastrointestinal toxicity between the bisphosphonates used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of bisphosphonates in participants with MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain. Bisphosphonates were associated with an increased risk of developing ONJ. For every 1000 participants treated with bisphosphonates, about one patient will suffer from the ONJ. We found no evidence of superiority of any specific aminobisphosphonate (zoledronate, pamidronate or ibandronate) or non-aminobisphosphonate (etidronate or clodronate) for any outcome. However, zoledronate was found to be better than placebo and first-generation bisposphonate (etidronate) in pooled direct and indirect analyses for improving OS and other outcomes such as vertebral fractures. Direct head-to-head trials of the second-generation bisphosphonates are needed to settle the issue if zoledronate is truly the most efficacious bisphosphonate currently used in practice.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw and survival of patients with cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark

Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) is an adverse effect of bone‐targeted therapies, which are used to prevent symptomatic skeletal events following bone malignancy. We examined the association between ONJ and survival among cancer patients treated with bone‐targeted agents. Using nationwide registries and databases in Denmark, we identified 184 cancer patients with incident ONJ between 2010 and 2015, and a comparison cohort of 1067 cancer patients without ONJ and with a history of hospital‐administered treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab initiating from cancer diagnosis. At the date of confirmed ONJ diagnosis, the comparison cohort was matched to the ONJ patients on age, cancer site, year of cancer diagnosis, and stage at diagnosis. The patients were followed up for survival until emigration or 15 June 2016. We computed overall survival and estimated mortality rate ratios adjusted for sex, and for the presence of distant metastases and other comorbidity at start of follow‐up. A match was found for 149 of the 184 ONJ patients. The 1‐ and 3‐year survival among all 184 cancer patients with ONJ was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63%–76%) and 42% (95% CI: 34%–51%), respectively. Among the matched patients, ONJ was associated with an adjusted mortality rate ratio of 1.31 (95% CI: 1.01–1.71). ONJ was associated with reduced survival among cancer patients treated with bone‐targeted agents. ONJ may be a marker of advanced disease or of survival‐related lifestyle characteristics.

Osteonecrosis of the Jaws (ONJ) after Bisphosphonate Treatment in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: Decreasing ONJ Incidence after Adoption of Preventive Measures

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are administered to Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients with bone lytic lesion. Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (ONJ) is a complication reported since 2003 in patients treated with intravenous (IV) BPs such as zoledronic acid and pamidronate, with 6%–26.3% frequency in early literature series, before some preventive measures were recommended. We evaluated the occurrence of ONJ with and without dental preventive measures in MM patients treated with BPs in our centre between 1996 and 2015. Since 2005, MM patients (already under treatment or before treatment) underwent a baseline mouth assessment (dental visit, Rx orthopantomography, and eventual tooth avulsion or dental care if necessary) and were followed by a multidisciplinary team. We reviewed the charts of 119 MM patients receiving IV BPs, classified into 3 groups: (a) “historic group” (21 patients who had started BP treatment in years before the awareness of ONJ); (b) “screening group” (20 patients starting BPs without baseline evaluation); and (c) “prevention group” (78 patients starting therapy only after baseline preventive assessment and eventual dental care measures). ONJ was observed in 3/21 patients (14.2%) from group a, in 2/20 patients (10%) from group b, and in no patients from group c (0%). Notably, the median number of IV BP administrations decreased after 2005. Our data confirmed a meaningful reduction of ONJ risk in MM patients treated with BPs if preventive measures are applied. Both implementation of prevention measures and reduction of cumulative doses of IV BPs could have contributed to a decreased incidence of ONJ.

Prevalence of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw in Patients with Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, and Multiple Myeloma

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw is a known side-effect of antiresorptive therapy in patients with malignant diseases. Nevertheless, the exact pathogenesis is still unknown and published prevalences show a significant range. The aim of the presented paper was to assess the prevalence of osteonecrosis (ONJ) in breast cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma patients receiving parenteral antiresorptive therapy. For this reason a PubMed search was performed and 69 matching articles comprising 29,437 patients were included in the analysis. Nine-hundred fifty-one cases of jaw necrosis were described. The overall ONJ-prevalence was 2.09% in the breast cancer group, 3.8% in the prostate cancer group, and 5.16% for multiple myeloma patients.

The Frequency of Medication-related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw and its Associated Risk Factors

This article provides the best current frequency estimate of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ), and identifies factors associated with the risk of developing osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) among patients exposed to relevant medications (ie, antiresorptive or antiangiogenic agents). MRONJ is a rare but serious complication of cancer treatment or osteoporosis management. This review confirms that antiresorptive medications such as oral or intravenous bisphosphonates and denosumab are the most common risk factors for developing ONJ. The risk of MRONJ is greater in patients with cancer than in those receiving antiresorptive treatments for osteoporosis by a factor of 10.

Understanding biology to tackle the disease: Multiple myeloma from bench to bedside, and back

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a cancer of antibody-producing plasma cells. The pathognomonic laboratory finding is a monoclonal immunoglobulin or free light chain in the serum and/or urine in association with bone marrow infiltration by malignant plasma cells. MM develops from a premalignant condition, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), often via an intermediate stage termed smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which differs from active myeloma by the absence of disease-related end-organ damage. Unlike MGUS and SMM, active MM requires therapy. Over the past 6 decades, major advancements in the care of MM patients have occurred, in particular, the introduction of novel agents (ie, proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents) and the implementation of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in suitable candidates. The effectiveness and good tolerability of novel agents allowed for their combined use in induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapy, resulting in deeper and more sustained clinical response and extended progression-free and overall survival. Previously a rapidly lethal cancer with few therapeutic options, MM is the hematologic cancer with the most novel US Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs in the past 15 years. These advances have resulted in more frequent long-term remissions, transforming MM into a chronic illness for many patients.