Listen to our latest episode of ONCOLOGY on The Go with insights from expert multidisciplinary professionals across the oncology space. 

ONCOLOGY On The Go Podcast

CancerNetwork in now on YouTube! We'll be discussing in-depth topics, and speaking with top leaders in the oncology space.

Find Us On YouTube

Your next job in oncology is just a click away! Explore positions across the cancer care industry with CancerNetwork® Oncology Career Center.

CancerNetwork® Oncology Career Center

Get comprehensive coverage for the multidisciplinary oncology community with accurate, credible, and timely news and expert insights.

Subscribe to Our eNewsletter Today!

The September issue of ONCOLOGY features a rare case study on glioblastoma, discussions on end-of-life care, and insights into the field of pediatric oncology. 

September ONCOLOGY Publication

Multiple myeloma, the second most common hematologic malignancy, accounts for approximately 10% of all blood cancers. Therapeutic advances have transformed multiple myeloma from a uniformly fatal disease into a chronic, manageable condition. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains a cornerstone of frontline treatment, demonstrating superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity compared with chemotherapy alone or modern induction regimens without transplant. International guidelines continue to recommend ASCT as the standard of care for eligible patients. Maintenance therapy post ASCT further improves PFS and overall survival, although it carries a modestly increased risk of secondary malignancies. Meanwhile, novel immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T cells and bispecific antibodies, are reshaping treatment strategies, showing strong efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Ongoing trials are evaluating their role in frontline settings, with the potential to complement or replace ASCT. The future of multiple myeloma management hinges on precision medicine, using MRD assessment, genomic profiling, and patient-specific risk stratification to guide therapy. As these personalized approaches are integrated alongside established therapies, the goal of achieving long-term remission and potentially a cure becomes increasingly attainable.

Multiple myeloma is a malignancy of clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow, characterized by monoclonal immunoglobulin production, immune suppression, and osteolytic bone lesions. It primarily affects older adults and accounts for approximately 10% of hematologic malignancies. Clinically, multiple myeloma often presents with bone pain, anemia, renal impairment, and increased susceptibility to infections due to marrow infiltration.

Over the past 3 decades, the treatment landscape for multiple myeloma has transformed dramatically, converting it from a uniformly fatal disease to a chronic, manageable condition for many patients. While autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has remained a key component of care, the improvement in survival outcomes has been largely driven by advances in therapies administered before and after transplant, particularly induction regimens, maintenance therapy, and salvage treatments.

High-dose chemotherapy (HDT), most commonly melphalan, is used in conjunction with ASCT to maximize disease eradication with subsequent reinfusion of the patient’s stem cells to restore hematopoiesis.

While long-term overall survival (OS) data in the context of novel agents are still evolving, ASCT remains one of the most effective strategies for achieving minimal/measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity and durable remissions, supported by both randomized trials and real-world evidence. As novel therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and bispecific antibodies emerge, ongoing clinical trials are redefining the role of ASCT in the treatment paradigm.

This review, inspired by a keynote lecture presented by Muzaffar H. Qazilbash, MD, during a MedNews Week webinar, explores the role of innovation, precision medicine, and ongoing clinical trial participation, which are the future of multiple myeloma care.

 More precise risk stratification and personalization can be made possible with technologies such as genomic profiling and MRD monitoring. As ASCT combines with innovative treatments to enhance outcomes for patients dealing with this complicated cancer, its role is changing rather than decreasing. Herein, we examine the ongoing relevance of ASCT in the treatment of multiple myeloma, highlighting its clinical efficacy, integration with novel therapies, and potential future directions. By evaluating landmark trials, stem cell mobilization strategies, and emerging immunotherapies, we aim to clarify ASCT’s evolving role in this era of newer therapies (

Rationale for ASCT in Modern-Day Multiple Myeloma

Over the past 2 decades, the expansion of treatment options, including the introduction of targeted therapies and immunomodulatory drugs, has significantly improved patient outcomes.

 Despite these developments, the gold standard for eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is ASCT following high-dose melphalan (HDM), which has been shown to have high response rates and long survival periods.

The strength of ASCT lies in its ability to consolidate responses achieved during induction therapy.

 Achieving MRD negativity is a strong prognostic indicator in multiple myeloma, and ASCT offers durable responses, including higher rates of MRD negativity.

 For instance, a study observed that MRD negativity increased from 20% pre-ASCT to 49% post ASCT, highlighting the transplant’s role in deepening responses.

 The UK phase 3 MYELOMA XI trial (NCT01554852) demonstrated that patients who are MRD negative 3 months post ASCT had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 44 months compared with 24 months for patients who were MRD positive.

 Overall, MRD status serves as a powerful indicator of PFS and OS in multiple myeloma.

Historically, patients with multiple myeloma survived a median of merely 3 to 4 years. Early applications such as vincristine, melphalan (M), cyclophosphamide, prednisone/vincristine, carmustine, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VMCP/VBAP) showed some improvement. The advent of HDT followed by ASCT was a major turning point, extending median survival to more than 7 to 8 years and substantially enhancing response rates, event-free survival, and OS.

Evidence From Landmark Trials and Real-World Data

Several large trials over the past decade have reinforced the continued value of ASCT (

The phase 3 DETERMINATION trial (NCT01208662), conducted in the US, demonstrated the continued value of ASCT, even in the era of potent induction regimens such as lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd). Patients who received early ASCT had a median PFS of 67.5 months compared with 46.2 months in those who did not, although OS was comparable at the time of analysis.

 The findings highlight the flexibility of ASCT, with early administration offering deeper remission without significantly compromising survival when deferred.

In addition to the US DETERMINATION trial, the French phase 3 IFM 2009 trial (NCT01191060) remains foundational in establishing ASCT’s role in the modern era. It demonstrated that patients who underwent ASCT had significantly longer PFS (47.3 months) than those who did not undergo transplant and instead received a longer course of RVd (35.0 months), despite similar OS outcomes.

 Early ASCT can deepen and prolong disease control, even when effective triplet induction regimens are used. Importantly, the comparable OS between the 2 arms also introduced the idea that transplant could be deferred in select cases, raising important clinical questions about optimal sequencing. However, the longer PFS in the ASCT group underscores its role in achieving sustained remission, which remains a critical treatment goal in multiple myeloma.

The FORTE trial (NCT02203643), a randomized phase 2 study, evaluated the impact of different carfilzomib-based regimens with or without ASCT in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The trial showed that carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) induction followed by ASCT led to higher MRD negativity (58%) and longer PFS compared with KRd alone. It also found KRd to be more effective than carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCd), and maintenance with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide was superior to lenalidomide alone. These results reinforce the value of ASCT in deepening response even with modern induction therapies.

The EMN02/HO95 trial (NCT01208766) further reinforced ASCT’s utility, especially the benefit of tandem transplants. This phase 3 study showed that tandem ASCT led to improved 3-year PFS (72.5%) and OS (88.9%) compared with single ASCT (PFS, 64.0%; OS, 81.5%), particularly in high-risk cytogenetic subgroups.

 The EMN02 results suggest that intensifying postinduction therapy with tandem ASCT may help overcome some of the adverse biology seen in these patients. This is especially relevant because patients with high-risk multiple myeloma often relapse early and respond poorly to standard therapy. Thus, the trial provides strong evidence for tailoring ASCT strategies based on individual risk profiles.

However, results from the StaMINA trial (NCT01109004) offered a contrasting view. This US-based phase 3 trial compared single ASCT with either a second (tandem) ASCT or RVd consolidation followed by lenalidomide maintenance. It found no statistically significant difference in PFS or OS among the 3 strategies, suggesting that additional post-ASCT interventions may not benefit all patients equally.

 This apparent discrepancy with EMN02 highlights the importance of patient selection and trial design. While StaMINA enrolled a broader, unselected population, EMN02 emphasized high-risk cytogenetics and deeper stratification. Together, these trials suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate and that the decision to intensify treatment post ASCT should be individualized. Smaller trials also support the role of consolidation. For example, the Nordic Myeloma Study Group showed modest PFS benefit (27 vs 20 months) for bortezomib consolidation post ASCT, particularly in patients who had not achieved a very good partial response.

 The idea that patients with suboptimal posttransplant responses may benefit from further therapy to deepen remission emphasizes the importance of response-adapted strategies in ASCT-era multiple myeloma management.

An Italian retrospective study involving 344 patients with multiple myeloma demonstrated that those eligible for ASCT had significantly better long-term survival outcomes. Specifically, the 20-year OS rate was 73% for patients who received 1 or 2 lines of therapy compared with 30% for those who received 3 or more lines.

Beyond Italy, the Canadian Myeloma Research Group study reported that patients undergoing ASCT as part of first-line therapy had a median PFS of 35.4 months and a median OS of 126 months. Results were further enhanced by maintenance treatment, especially lenalidomide, with a median OS of 159 months and PFS of 53.7 months.

 Similarly, data from the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry indicated that ASCT recipients had a median PFS of 45.3 months and OS not reached compared with 35.2 months for PFS and 64.0 months for OS in patients who did not receive ASCT. These benefits were observed across age groups, including patients aged 65 to 70 years.

Timing of Transplant: Early Vs Delayed in the Era of Immunotherapy

The optimal timing of ASCT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma has been a central question, particularly in the era of novel immunotherapies. The debate centers on whether to perform ASCT early after induction or to reserve it for a later time, such as at relapse. The core of this discussion involves balancing the benefits of a deep, durable response against the lack of an OS advantage and the potential for treatment-related toxicities.

Two pivotal phase 3 trials, IFM 2009 (France) and DETERMINATION (US), compared early vs delayed ASCT in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

 Both trials utilized the same induction regimen of RVd, and each enrolled about 700 patients. The key difference in trial design was that IFM 2009 used fixed-duration lenalidomide maintenance for 1 year, whereas DETERMINATION continued lenalidomide until disease progression. Moreover, this difference had important implications at relapse: Almost none of the French patients were lenalidomide-refractory, whereas nearly all US patients were. This affected not only the choice of salvage regimens but also strategies for postsalvage transplant maintenance.

The results showed that early ASCT significantly improved PFS and led to higher rates of MRD negativity. These findings reinforce the notion that early ASCT remains the standard of care for eligible patients and may provide the best opportunity for achieving a deep and durable response in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. However, neither trial showed an OS advantage, even with extended follow-up. This may be attributed to the effectiveness of salvage therapies in mitigating the differences in long-term outcomes. However, both trials are suggestive that one needs to make a judgment regarding the potential benefits of early ASCT compared with the toxicities of chemotherapy and delayed ASCT, especially because the OS is the same.

In the IFM 2009 trial, for example, 80% of patients in the delayed group eventually received an ASCT at relapse, effectively mitigating the long-term survival differences between the 2 arms. Conversely, only 28% in the DETERMINATION trial’s delayed arm received a transplant. This discrepancy must be interpreted in the context of maintenance: Most French patients progressed after their 1-year lenalidomide maintenance, making salvage ASCT a necessary and feasible option. In contrast, many US patients who received prolonged lenalidomide maintenance did not progress for a much longer period, making salvage ASCT unnecessary for a substantial duration. This highlights a crucial consideration that, while salvage therapies are effective, delaying ASCT carries the risk of losing the opportunity for transplantation altogether, especially for a disease with a median diagnosis age of 69 years, when patients may become too old or frail for HDT and ASCT by the time of relapse.

Yet, the timing of ASCT is not a purely clinical decision. Despite the PFS advantage, physician surveys indicate that OS remains the primary factor in treatment decisions, and many providers were not persuaded to adopt early ASCT solely based on PFS.

 For older patients, especially those older than 65 years, comorbidities, trust in the oncologist, family input, and concerns about adverse effects influence the decision-making.

 In addition, ASCT improves quality of life (QOL) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, likely because it leads to more prolonged remissions and reduces the need for ongoing chemotherapy.

 Although ASCT may take a toll on QOL in the short term, improvements have been reported in the long-term.

 Thus, some patients, especially in high-risk cases, may prefer prioritizing QOL over longevity. This shifts the focus to achieving a delicate balance between the treatment burden and the benefits of deep remission.

The developing therapeutic landscape highlights the need for a personalized approach to the timing of ASCT. This approach should balance clinical trial data with real-world considerations, including the patient’s values, biological risk, and overall treatment goals. Key clinical variables in determining the timing of ASCT include patient age, comorbidities, disease risk profile, and responses to prior treatments. Numerous retrospective studies support this individualized strategy, often relying on physician-mediated surveys. These surveys have identified several factors influencing transplant timing, including patient preference, cytogenetic risk, previous chemotherapy responses, and ECOG performance status.

Stem Cell Mobilization and Posttransplant Maintenance

Hematopoietic stem cells typically reside in the bone marrow, where they are anchored by interactions involving CXCR4 and stromal- derived factor-1.

 Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is frequently administered over 4 days to stimulate the release of stem cells into the peripheral blood. When used in conjunction with plerixafor, a CXCR4 antagonist, stem cell mobilization is significantly enhanced by disrupting these molecular interactions, thereby facilitating collection.

 However, the routine use of plerixafor for all patients poses financial challenges due to its high cost.

 To address these financial concerns, risk-adapted strategies such as the “just-in-time” administration of plerixafor have been adopted. Here, the drug is reserved for patients who demonstrate poor mobilization with G-CSF alone. A study evaluating this strategy reported that selective use of plerixafor in poor mobilizers resulted in effective stem cell collection without substantially increasing overall costs.

An alternative strategy involves combining chemotherapy (commonly cyclophosphamide) with growth factors in cases where patients exhibit inadequate mobilization with G-CSF alone. A meta-analysis encompassing 18 studies with a total of 2770 patients with multiple myeloma demonstrated that the combination of cyclophosphamide and G-CSF resulted in higher yields of CD34-positive cells and improved mobilization rates compared with G-CSF alone. However, this regimen was also associated with increased risks of hospitalization and fever during mobilization, indicating a higher toxicity profile.

 Despite the improved mobilization efficiency, the addition of chemotherapy does not appear to confer significant benefits in OS or stem cell quality.

 Furthermore, the use of chemotherapy in stem cell mobilization has been associated with increased toxicity.

HDM at 200 mg/m² remains the gold standard for conditioning in multiple myeloma due to its favorable efficacy and toxicity profile.

 However, this regimen is associated with significant gastrointestinal toxicity, including diarrhea, vomiting, and mucositis.

 Previous agents such as thiotepa, busulfan, and cyclophosphamide were investigated as alternatives but failed to provide consistent advantages in survival or reduced toxicity.

 Emerging data from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center suggest that modified conditioning regimens may benefit select high-risk patients younger than 70 years.

 It identifies busulfan plus melphalan as a superior conditioning regimen regarding PFS, compared with melphalan alone, although with a higher adverse event burden, hence suggesting that busulfan plus melphalan conditioning can serve as a useful platform for further improvement of transplant outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma.

The approval of lenalidomide as maintenance therapy was granted by the European Medicines Agency and the FDA in 2017.

 It demonstrates a significant OS benefit and extends PFS in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

 However, prolonged use of lenalidomide is associated with an increased risk of secondary malignancies, particularly an increased risk of 

 In patients who are ultra high risk, some clinicians incorporate dual maintenance strategies by adding proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib. A retrospective study comparing doublet maintenance of bortezomib plus lenalidomide vs lenalidomide alone found that patients with high-risk multiple myeloma did not reap the same survival benefits from lenalidomide maintenance as patients who were standard risk, suggesting that more intensive maintenance regimens may be necessary.

 More compelling evidence comes from prospective trials, such as the FORTE trial and the phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM3 trial (NCT02181413). The FORTE trial showed that KRd induction followed by ASCT led to longer PFS compared with KRd alone.

 The TOURMALINE-MM3 trial, a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, showed that ixazomib maintenance post ASCT significantly prolonged PFS compared with placebo, highlighting the potential role of oral proteasome inhibitor–based maintenance.

 However, the optimal maintenance strategy remains an area of active investigation.

The phase 2 GRIFFIN trial (NCT02874742) studied the addition of daratumumab to RVd (D-RVd) in patients who were transplant eligible with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. One group received D-RVd with ASCT and daratumumab-lenalidomide maintenance, while the control group received RVd with ASCT and lenalidomide maintenance. The daratumumab group showed significantly deeper responses, with MRD negativity rates of 62.5% compared with 27.2% in the control group. At a follow-up of 49.6 months, the 4-year PFS was 87.2% in the D-RVd arm vs 70.0% in the RVd-only group. This confirms that adding daratumumab to standard therapy plus ASCT improves both MRD negativity and PFS.

Several important questions on the ideal duration of maintenance remain unanswered. A study found that longer maintenance therapy was associated with improved PFS and OS.

 The MRD2STOP trial (NCT04108624) is a pragmatic study evaluating maintenance therapy cessation guided by MRD negativity in multiple myeloma. Discontinuation in patients with multiple myeloma and multimodal MRD less than 10

 resulted in a low rate of disease progression or MRD resurgence.

 These findings suggest that MRD status can be used as a biomarker to guide maintenance therapy decisions.

The Future of ASCT in Multiple Myeloma Care

More recently, the evolution of immune-based therapies, including CAR T-cell therapies for B-cell maturation antigen and bispecific antibodies, has opened a new era in the management of multiple myeloma, producing deep and durable responses even in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

 These therapies show promise as potential alternatives to ASCT. However, long-term data regarding their durability and curative potential in the frontline setting are still lacking.

Earlier trials that used idiotype vaccines made from the patient’s own M protein combined with their own activated autologous T cells showed some immune activation with minimal toxicity. However, it did not result in any significant clinical improvements for disease management.

 Nevertheless, it laid the foundation for creating today’s genetically engineered T cells, such as CAR T cells, as well as immune-engaging therapies such as bispecific antibodies, and antigen-specific T or natural killer cells.

Multiple ongoing trials are studying the role of immunotherapy in complementing or even replacing ASCT in patients with high-risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. New clinical trials, such as the phase 3 CARTITUDE-6 trial (NCT05257083), compare ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) with transplant, followed by lenalidomide maintenance.

 Similarly, the phase 1 KarMMa-4 trial (NCT04196491) is testing idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) as a frontline therapy, potentially offering an alternative to transplant.

 These efforts aim to produce lasting responses that might allow patients to live without continual treatment, drug-related toxicities, T-cell exhaustion, complex manufacturing processes, high costs, and limited accessibility.

History has shown the risk of prematurely discarding effective therapies. Two decades ago, the emergence of thalidomide and bortezomib led to early predictions of ASCT’s obsolescence, predictions that proved incorrect.

 Such errors of judgment highlight the necessity for evidence-based change as opposed to speculative enthusiasm.

While it is plausible that in the next decade or 2, immune-based and targeted therapies may entirely replace transplant, especially as MRD-directed and risk-adapted approaches reach maturity, ASCT remains the only modality that has incontrovertibly proven advantages in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

 When combined with modern induction and maintenance regimens, ASCT offers unmatched disease control and depth of response.

The future of multiple myeloma therapy is undoubtedly exciting, with transformative treatments on the horizon. However, ASCT has consistently proven its value through decades of trials and real-world evidence, a feat that newer therapies have yet to replicate in the frontline setting. Until that standard is met, ASCT remains an indispensable pillar of multiple myeloma treatment. Any shift away from transplant should be influenced not by trends or enthusiasm, but by rigorous clinical confirmation and an insistence on sustaining patient survival outcomes.

ASCT continues to be a cornerstone in the treatment of multiple myeloma, offering patients a meaningful chance at deeper responses and longer remissions. It has helped shape the way we approach and improve care for this complex disease. Recent data from the EMN02/HO95 trial reaffirm its benefit, demonstrating significant improvements in both PFS and OS, even in the pre–novel agent era.

 The trial also underscores the value of PFS as a meaningful end point. Simultaneously, emerging results from the phase 2 GMMG-CONCEPT study (NCT03104842) suggest that transplant-free regimens, such as isatuximab-KRd, can achieve profound MRD negativity in high-risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, regardless of transplant status.

 These findings reflect growing interest in nontransplant approaches for selected populations.

The future of multiple myeloma therapy may lie in MRD-guided, response-adaptive trials, which aim to identify patients who could safely defer or avoid transplant without compromising outcomes. This signals a broader shift toward personalized treatment strategies where ASCT is increasingly seen not as a stand-alone intervention but as part of an integrated, multimodal approach.

Meanwhile, immunotherapies, particularly CAR T cells and bispecific antibodies, continue to show promise, especially in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Despite high response rates with agents such as ide-cel and cilta-cel, challenges remain regarding durability, toxicity, cost, and access.

 In contrast, ASCT retains a favorable safety and efficacy profile and serves as a complementary modality to these emerging treatments. Additional strategies, such as drug repurposing, using agents such as thalidomide, statins, and celecoxib, are also under investigation to address resistance and relapse.

 Many of today’s standards began as experimental approaches fueled by academic curiosity. Continued scientific engagement, particularly from the next generation of clinician- researchers, will be essential to sustain progress. The integration of traditional therapies with innovation, informed by MRD monitoring, genomic profiling, and patient-centered trial design, represents the future of multiple myeloma care.

In conclusion, while ASCT may no longer be the sole cornerstone of therapy, it remains a vital component of treatment. Its optimal utility will lie in strategic integration within an increasingly precise and dynamic treatment framework. Through thoughtful collaboration between established and novel approaches, the goal of durable remission, and ultimately a cure, moves ever closer.

We thank Dr Muzaffar H. Qazilbash for his insights provided during the MedNews Week keynote conference.

TKD and JG contributed equally to the conception, literature review, drafting, and initial writing of the manuscript. SN, RV, and IP supported data analysis, figure preparation, and literature synthesis. VC, CP, and YL equally contributed to supervision, project guidance, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

No patient data were directly utilized in this study.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Albagoush SA, Azevedo AM, Shumway C. Multiple myeloma. In: 

; StatPearls Publishing; 2023. Accessed December 4, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/3abuxz5z

Fairfield H, Falank C, Avery L, Reagan MR. Multiple myeloma in the marrow: pathogenesis and treatments. 

. 2016;1364(1):32-51. doi:10.1111/nyas.13038

Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. 

. 2017;376(14):1311-1320. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1611750

Yuan S, Chen Y, Liu H. Progress and prospect of ASCT combined with CAR-T therapy in the treatment of multiple myeloma. 

. 2024;15:20406207241237594. doi:10.1177/20406207241237594

Parrondo RD, Ailawadhi S, Sher T, Chanan-Khan AA, Roy V. Autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in the era of novel therapies. 

. 2020;16(2):56-66. doi:10.1200/JOP.19.00335

MedNews Week YouTube page. MedNews Week Keynote Conference (Live Stream) - Dr. Muzaffar Qazilbash (MD Anderson Cancer Center). Accessed May 12, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/3u68fe7m

Morè S, Corvatta L, Manieri VM, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: where are we and where do we want to go? 

. 2022;11(4):606. doi:10.3390/cells11040606

Ebraheem M, Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, et al. Deepening responses after upfront autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in the era of novel agent induction therapy. 

. 2022;28(11):760.e1-5. Accessed May 27, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2022.07.030

de Tute RM, Pawlyn C, Cairns DA, et al. Minimal Residual Disease After Autologous Stem-Cell Transplant for Patients With Myeloma: Prognostic Significance and the Impact of Lenalidomide Maintenance and Molecular Risk. 

. 2022;40(25):2889-2900. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.02228

de Tute RM, Pawlyn C, Cairns DA, et al. Minimal residual disease after autologous stem-cell transplant for patients with myeloma: prognostic significance and the impact of lenalidomide maintenance and molecular risk. 

van de Velde H, Londhe A, Ataman O, et al. Association between complete response and outcomes in transplant-eligible myeloma patients in the era of novel agents. 

. 2017;98(3):269-279. doi:10.1111/ejh.12829

Nijhof IS, van de Donk NW, Zweegman S, Lokhorst HM. Current and new therapeutic strategies for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: an update. 

. 2018;78(1):19-37. doi:10.1007/s40265-017-0841-y

Richardson PG, Jacobus SJ, Weller EA, et al. Triplet therapy, transplantation, and maintenance until progression in myeloma. 

. 2022;387(2):132-147. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2204925

. 2017;376(14):1311-1320. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1611750

Gay F, Musto P, Rota-Scalabrini D, et al. Carfilzomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus autologous transplantation or carfilzomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, followed by maintenance with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (FORTE): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. 

. 2021;22(12):1705-1720. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00535-0

Cavo M, Gay F, Beksac M, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, with or without bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone consolidation therapy, and lenalidomide maintenance for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (EMN02/HO95): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. 

. 2020;7(6):e456-e468. doi:10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5

Stadtmauer EA, Pasquini MC, Blackwell B, et al. Autologous transplantation, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma: results of the BMT CTN 0702 trial. 

. 2019;37(7):589-597. doi:10.1200/JCO.18.00685

Mellqvist UH, Gimsing P, Hjertner Ø, et al. Bortezomib consolidation after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: a Nordic Myeloma Study Group randomized phase 3 trial. 

. 2013;121(23):4647-4654. doi:10.1182/blood-2012-11-464503

Fazio F, Gherardini M, Rossi E, et al. Long-term survival with multiple myeloma: an Italian experience. 

. 2025;17(3):354–4. doi:10.3390/cancers17030354

Côté J, LeBlanc R, Mian H, et al. Real-world results of autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a report from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group database. 

. 2023;13(1). doi:10.1038/s41408-023-00905-8

Bergin K, Wellard C, Augustson B, et al. Real-world utilisation of ASCT in multiple myeloma (MM): a report from the Australian and New Zealand myeloma and related diseases registry (MRDR). 

. 2021;56(10):2533-2543. doi:10.1038/s41409-021-01308-8

Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. 

Dulka B, Bone RN, Jeune-Smith Y, Baljevic M, Feinberg BA. The DETERMINATION trial impact on upfront (vs delayed) autologous stem cell transplantation for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. 

. 2022;140(suppl 1):10958-10959. doi:10.1182/blood-2022-166490

Mian O, Puts M, McCurdy A, et al. Decision-making factors for an autologous stem cell transplant for older adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a qualitative analysis. 

. 2023;12:974038. doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.974038

Hashmi H, Davis JA, Abdallah AO. ‘A stitch in time saves nine’: early stem cell transplant continues to improve outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. 

. 2023;16(8):561-563. doi:10.1080/17474086.2023.2227789

Chakraborty R, Hamilton BK, Hashmi SK, Kumar SK, Majhail NS. Health-related quality of life after autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. 

. 2018;24(8):1546-1553. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.03.027

Blackburn L, Mansour A, Zhao Q, Cottini F, Khan A, Bumma N, et al. Real world predictors, timing, and outcomes of autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. 

. 2024;5(4):407-419. doi:10.3390/hemato5040030

Petit I, Szyper-Kravitz M, Nagler A, et al. G-CSF induces stem cell mobilization by decreasing bone marrow SDF-1 and up-regulating CXCR4. 

Rettig MP, Ramirez P, Nervi B, DiPersio JF. CXCR4 and mobilization of hematopoietic precursors. 

. 2009;460:57-90. doi:10.1016/S0076-6879(09)05203-3

Articles

Discover how stem cell transplant still deepens myeloma remission, guided by MRD and paired with CAR‑T, bispecifics, and smarter maintenance.

Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma: Is It Still the Gold Standard?

In tandem, the FDA approved the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx companion diagnostic to determine patients with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma who have tumors that express PD-L1 with a combined positive score of 1 or more. 

Pembrolizumab (keytruda) and pembrolizumab and berahyaluronidase alfa-pmph (Keytruda Qlex) have been approved by the FDA in combination with paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1, determined by an FDA-approved test, or who have 1 to 2 prior systemic therapies. 

The approval was based on results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-B96 trial (NCT05116189), which showed a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0-9.4) in the pembrolizumab arm vs 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.1) in the placebo arm (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.89; 

 = .0014). Additionally, the median overall survival (OS) was 18.2 months (95% CI, 15.3-21.0) vs 14.0 months (95% CI, 12.5-16.1) between both arms, respectively (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94; 

The recommended dose of pembrolizumab is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months on treatment. For pembrolizumab and berahyaluronidase alfa-pmph, the recommended dose is 395mg/4800 units every 3 weeks or 790mg/9600 units every 6 weeks. Bevaciziumab can be administered on the same day as pembrolizumab. 

The safety of the regimen in the KEYNOTE-B96 trial was noted to be similar to previously reported results from other trials. The prescribing information includes warnings and precautions for immune-mediated adverse reactions, infusion-related reactions, complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

FDA approves pembrolizumab with paclitaxel for platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma. News release. FDA. February 10, 2026. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://tinyurl.com/ydzhnzha

Data from the KEYNOTE-B96 trial support the FDA approval of the pembrolizumab regimen in these gynecologic malignancies.

FDA Approves Pembrolizumab/Chemo in Platinum-Resistant GYN Indications

Nivolumab improved 9-year recurrence-free survival compared with ipilimumab for resected stage III or IV melanoma in the phase 3 CheckMate 238 trial.

Final 9-year results from the phase 3 CheckMate 238 trial (NCT02388906) demonstrated that adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) significantly improved long-term recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared with ipilimumab (Yervoy) in patients with resected stage III or IV melanoma.

CheckMate 238 Data that Support the Findings

At a minimum follow-up of 107 months, the median duration of RFS was 61.1 months (95% CI, 42.9–89.2) with nivolumab vs 24.2 months (95% CI, 16.6–35.1) with ipilimumab. The 9-year RFS rates were 44% in the nivolumab group and 37% in the ipilimumab group (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63–0.90).

In patients with stage III melanoma, the median distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) exceeded 9 years with nivolumab compared with 83.8 months with ipilimumab. The 9-year DMFS rates were 54% and 48%, respectively (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65–1.00). Median overall survival (OS) exceeded 9 years in both groups, with 9-year OS rates of 69% for nivolumab and 65% for ipilimumab (HR, 0.88; 95.03% CI, 0.69–1.11).

The Kaplan Meier estimates showed the 9-year survival with nivolumab of 74% vs 70% with ipilimumab (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67-1.12).

“After a minimum of 9 years of follow-up among patients with resected stage IIIB to C or stage IV melanoma, final data from the CheckMate 238 trial reinforce the benefit of nivolumab as compared with ipilimumab with respect to RFS and DMFS,” Paolo A. Ascierto, MD, from the Istituto Nazionale Tumori, IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy, and co-authors wrote in the paper. “These data, which confirm findings in previous reports, also showed that the RFS benefit was seen across nearly all subgroups analyzed.”

A retrospective analysis evaluated whether drug administration before or after 1 pm influenced RFS or overall survival (OS). Investigators observed that OS was similar regardless of whether doses were administered before or after 1 pm in the nivolumab, ipilimumab, or pooled groups. The analysis did not confirm a major influence of early drug administration on RFS for most doses.

Fewer patients in the nivolumab group required subsequent systemic anticancer therapy compared with the ipilimumab group (37.3% vs 44.6%).

Subsequent immunotherapy was administered to 26.5% of the nivolumab group and 36.9% of the ipilimumab group.

Specific subsequent agents included pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in 7.7% of the nivolumab group vs 20.5% of the ipilimumab group, and nivolumab in 14.1% vs 18.8%, respectively.

Other subsequent treatments included surgery (22.5% vs 19.6%), BRAF inhibitors (15.9% vs 15.7%), and radiotherapy (9.3% vs 10.6%).

CheckMate 238 was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous nivolumab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses and then every 12 weeks thereafter. Treatment continued for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity.

This multicenter, double-blind study was conducted to determine if the RFS benefits observed in earlier analyses were sustained over a nearly decade-long follow-up period. Investigators found that patients receiving nivolumab maintained a higher rate of RFS and DMFS than those receiving ipilimumab, supporting nivolumab as a preferred adjuvant treatment in this high-risk population.

The trial enrolled 906 patients, 453 in each group, between March 30 and November 30, 2015.

Eligible patients were aged 15 years or older with histologically confirmed, completely resected stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma per AJCC 7th edition.

All participants had an ECOG performance-status score of 0 or 1.

Random assignment was stratified by disease stage and PD-L1 status.

The primary end point was RFS in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included OS and safety. DMFS in stage III disease was an exploratory end point.

Safety data were previously reported up to 100 days after the last dose and have not been updated since the 4-year database lock. No new late adverse effects (AEs) or treatment-related safety concerns were reported during the extended follow-up period. At the time of the 9-year lock, investigators recorded no new investigator-assessed treatment-related AEs since the 4-year analysis.

Ascierto PA, Del Vecchio M, Merelli B, et al. Nivolumab for resected stage III or IV melanoma at 9 years. 

. 2026;394(4):333-342. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2504966

Nivolumab Sustains 9-Year Survival Benefit in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma

According to Dominique Rash, MD, the incidence of inoperable endometrial cancer is rising in the US, and clinicians may encounter it more frequently. 

2026 American College of Radiation Oncology (ACRO) Summit,

 Dominique Rash, MD, took the stage to highlight the intricacies of treating patients with inoperable endometrial cancer. Following that presentation, CancerNetwork® spoke with Rash about why her topic was so important and what she hoped the listening radiation oncologists would take away from it.

Rash, a radiation oncologist and an associate professor of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences at University of California San Diego, stated that the topic was likely chosen to be spotlighted because of its real-world, practical applications, especially as they may become more common. She emphasized that medically inoperable endometrial cancer represents a growing clinical challenge that many practicing radiation oncologists will increasingly encounter.

According to Rash, several converging trends are contributing to this shift. The overall incidence of endometrial cancer in the US continues to rise, and patients are, on average, being diagnosed at older ages. As life expectancy increases, more patients are living with significant medical comorbidities that may preclude surgical management. Additionally, rising rates of obesity, a known risk factor for endometrial cancer, further increase the likelihood that some patients will be deemed poor surgical candidates.

The session also addressed the evolving role of systemic therapy in this setting. Rash noted that there has been increasing discussion around incorporating systemic treatments for patients with more advanced disease, including stage III and IV endometrial cancer. For these patients, radiation therapy often serves as a cornerstone of local control, but multimodality management may be necessary to address the risk of distant disease.

Why was your topic important for a forum like ACRO?

I think the session organizers were wanting to present some challenging cases with real-world, practical applications for the providers that attend ACRO. Medically inoperable endometrial cancer is probably something that we’re going to be seeing a little bit more of in the future. The incidence of endometrial cancer in the US is rising. Patients are becoming older with additional medical comorbidities and living a longer time. There’s also a cohort of patients who are becoming a little bit more heavyset over time as well, and those are things that increase the probability of being diagnosed with medically inoperable endometrial cancer.

We tried to prioritize on how best to manage patients with either a combination of external beam radiation with brachytherapy or brachytherapy alone. How do [we] identify which patients benefit from monotherapy with—for example, brachytherapy alone—vs the combined modality therapy? Then, there’s been a lot of discussion of how to incorporate systemic therapy as well, particularly with patients with more advanced stage disease—stage III, stage IV—endometrial cancer.

According to Dominique Rash, MD, the incidence of inoperable endometrial cancer is rising in the US, and clinicians may encounter it more frequently.