Real-world outcomes of SLiM-only multiple myeloma: Korean Multicenter Retrospective analysis (KMM2401 study)

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7910932/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Real-world outcomes of SLiM-only multiple myeloma: Korean Multicenter Retrospective analysis (KMM2401 study)

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7910932/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

In the 2014 update, SLiM biomarkers were included into the "myeloma defining events" as these markers were shown to be significantly associated with early progression to active multiple myeloma (MM). However, several subsequent studies have reported more favorable outcomes. To further clarify the clinical implications, we conducted a retrospective analysis. Patients diagnosed with MM based solely on SLiM biomarkers (SLiM-only MM) 8-17were included. Patients were analyzed according to whether they underwent active observation (group 1) or immediate treatment (group 2). From 2011 to 2023, 72 cases were collected from 7 tertiary institutes in Korea. The median age was 65, and 40 (56%) were male. In terms of the SLiM criteria, 27 patients had bone marrow plasma cell(BMPC) ≥ 60%, 31 patients had serum free light chain ratio (FLCr) ≥ 100, and 35 patients had > 1 focal lesion on MRI. Thirty-five patients were included in group 1, and the median time to progression to MM was 75.8 months. Regardless of the fulfilled SLiM criteria, patients exhibited lower 2-year risk of progression to MM compared with previous studies. Patients with > 1 focal lesion on MRI showed significantly lower 2-year risk of progression than those with BMPC ≥ 60% or FLCr ≥ 100 (p = 0.014). In group 2, the estimated median PFS was 56.8 months. Patients with SLiM-only MM exhibited an extended TTP without treatment compared to prior studies, particularly those with > 1 focal lesions on MRI. In addition, the first-line treatment resulted in favorable outcomes, which may support the benefit of earlier initiation of treatment.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant proliferation of plasma cells, which accounts for 10%-15% of all hematologic malignancy, making it the second most common hematologic malignancy worldwide. In 2022, age-standardized rate of incidence was 1.8 per 100,000 person-years with 188,000 newly diagnosed cases were estimated globally[1]. MM is a complex disease with high genetic heterogeneity that develops as a multistep process, involving acquisition of genetic alterations in the tumor cells and changes in the bone marrow microenvironment[2]. During this process, MM is almost always preceded by asymptomatic precursor stages, such as monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) or smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM)[3]. MGUS is present in more than 3% of the general population older than 50 years, with an annual risk of progression to MM of approximately 1%[4]. SMM accounts for 8–10% of the MM cases carrying a higher risk of progression to symptomatic MM[5]. Within the first 5 years, around 10% of SMM patients progress to symptomatic MM each year, which may be considered as MM with early detection[6]. Consequently, there have been ongoing efforts to more precisely define “symptomatic disease” and identify patients with a higher risk of progression at an earlier stage[7], enabling timely therapeutic intervention.

In 2014, the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) incorporated three biomarkers (SLiM, bone marrow plasma cells [BMPC] ≥ 60 (Sixty)%, serum free Light chain ratio [FLCr] ≥ 100, and > 1 focal lesion [≥ 5 mm] detected by Magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) into the ‘myeloma-defining events’ in addition to the CRAB criteria (hyperCalcemia, Renal insufficiency, Anemia, Bone lesions), because these biomarkers were significantly associated with early progression to active multiple myeloma[8]. For example, a report from the Mayo Clinic found that patients with BMPC ≥ 60% had a significantly shorter time to progression (TTP) to MM (median 7 months, p < 0.001) compared with those who had less than 60% involvement.[9]. This finding was replicated in a Greek report, which showed that patients with BMPC ≥ 60% had a median TTP to MM of 15 months[10]. Similarly, multiple studies have demonstrated that approximately 15% of patients with SMM harbor more than one focal lesion on whole-body MRI, which is associated with a significantly shorter TTP to MM compared with patients with zero or one focal lesion[11–13].

However, several subsequent reports published after 2014 update of the diagnostic criteria demonstrated that patients who met SLiM biomarkers showed favorable outcomes compared to the previous reports[14, 15]. A recent meta-analysis including 11 studies with 3,482 patients found that studies published after 2014 reported an approximately threefold longer TTP compared with those were published before 2014[16].

Patients with MM diagnosed solely on the basis of SLiM biomarkers (SLiM-only MM) exhibited distinct features compared with those diagnosed according to the CRAB criteria (CRAB-MM). In a subgroup analysis of the CASSIOPEIA trial, which evaluated bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab in transplant-eligible newly-diagnosed MM patients, SLiM-only MM patients (n = 81) were slightly fitter and had lower-risk profiles compared with CRAB-MM patients (n = 1004)[17]. However, treatment outcomes, including response rates, minimal residual disease negativity rates, and progression-free survival, were comparable between the two groups. Furthermore, a retrospective study from Australia and New Zealand reported that patients with SLiM-only MM (n = 257) exhibited a lower incidence of advanced stage, and prolonged progression-free and overall survival (OS) compared to CRAB-MM patients[18]. Therefore, to better understand the outcomes of SLiM-MM patients who would have been observed without treatment prior to the updated 2014 criteria, additional data are needed. Moreover, no subsequent studies have addressed patients with > 1 one focal lesion on MRI.

To further clarify the clinical impact of the SLiM biomarkers, we conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis in Korea.

Patients

Patients who were diagnosed with MM based solely on SLiM biomarkers (as described above) were included in the analysis. Patients presenting with CRAB features, extramedullary plasmacytoma, solitary plasmacytoma, primary amyloidosis, or plasma cell leukemia were excluded. Baseline characteristics, treatment details, and outcomes were collected retrospectively. High-risk cytogenetics were defined by the presence of t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p), or + 1q abnormalities. Outcomes including TTP to CRAB-MM, 2-year risk of progression, PFS associated with first-line treatment (PFS1), and OS were evaluated in patients who were actively observed until development of CRAB features. For patients who initiated treatment without an observation period, outcomes assessed included PFS1, and OS.

Statistical analysis

TTP to CRAB-MM was calculated from the date of initial diagnosis of SLiM-only MM to the date on which any of CRAB criteria were first fulfilled. The 2-year risk of progression was then estimated as 1-PFS probability at 2 years. PFS1 was calculated from the initiation of the first-line treatment to the date of disease progression. OS was determined from the initial diagnosis of SLiM-only MM to the date of death. These endpoints were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and subgroup comparisons were conducted using the log-rank test. The threshold for statistical significance was regarded as p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 21.0 (IBM Corp.).

Baseline characteristics

From 2011 to 2023, 72 cases were collected from 8 tertiary institutes in Korea. The median age was 65 (range, 36–89), and 40 (56%) were male. In terms of the SLiM criteria, 27 patients had BMPC ≥ 60%, 31 patients had FLCr ≥ 100, and 35 patients had > 1 focal lesion. Fifty-eight patients (81%) met only one SLiM criterion, while 7 (10%) met two and another 7 (10%) met all three. Of note, whole-body or spine/pelvis MRI was performed in 67 patients (93%). Whole body skeletal computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography/CT were performed in 30 (42%) and 8 (11%) patients, respectively. Staging by the International Staging System (ISS) was available for 65 patients: 36 (50%), 17 (24%), and 12 (17%) were classified as stage I, II, and III, respectively. Revised ISS (R-ISS) was available for 54 patients: 19 (26%), 28 (39%), and 7 (10%) were classified as stage I, II, and III, respectively. Nineteen patients (26%) had at least one high-risk cytogenetic abnormality. Other features are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics

N (%)

Age (median, range)

≤ 65 years

> 65 years

65 (36 – 89)

37 (51)

35 (49)

Sex

Male/Female

40 (56)/32 (44)

ECOG PS

0~1/2~4

62 (86)/10 (14)

Heavy chain subtype

IgG/IgA/Light chain only/Non-secretory

39 (54)/17 (24)/15 (21)/1(1)

Light chain subtype

Kappa/Lambda/Non-secretory

50 (69)/21 (29)/1 (1)

Stage by ISS

I/II/III/Missing or unavailable

36 (50)/17 (24)/12 (17)/7 (10)

Stage by R-ISS

I/II/III/Missing or unavailable

19 (27)/28 (39)/7 (10)/18 (25)

Hemoglobin (median, range)(g/dL)

12.3 (10.0 – 15.8)

Estimated creatinine clearance rate (mL/min)

81.3 (42.0 – 140.5)

High-risk cytogenetic abnormality

None

t(4;14) alone

t(4;14) with +1q

t(14;16) with +1q

del(17p)

+1q

53 (74)

6 (8)

2 (3)

1 (1)

3 (4)

7 (10)

Fulfilled SLiM biomarkers

Bone marrow plasma cell ≥60%

Serum free light chain ratio ≥100

> 1 focal lesion (> 5mm) by MRI

Meeting 2 criteria

Meeting 3 criteria

27 (38)

31 (43)

35 (49)

7 (10)

Performed imaging modality

Whole-body or spine/pelvis MRI

Whole-body skeletal CT

PET-CT

67 (93)

30 (42)

8 (11)

Clinical course

Thirty-five patients (49%) patients were managed with active surveillance (group 1), while the other thirty-seven patients (51%) received immediate treatment (group 2). There was no significant difference in whether patients underwent active surveillance or initiated treatment immediately according to the time of diagnosis.

In group 1, the median age was 60 years (range, 36–78). Three patients (9%) and one patient (3%) were classified as ISS stage III and R-ISS stage III, respectively. Regarding the SLiM criteria, one patient met all three criteria, whereas the remaining 34 patients met only one criterion: 10 patients (29%) had BMPC ≥ 60%, 13 patients (37%) had an FLCr ≥ 100, and 14 patients (40%) had > 1 focal lesion on MRI. At a median follow-up of 59.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.0–90.8), 10 patients (29%) progressed to CRAB-MM. The median TTP to CRAB-MM was 75.8 months, and the 2-year risk of progression was 19.6% (95% CI, 18.8–24.9%)(Fig. 1A). After excluding the one patient who met all three SLiM criteria, patients with > 1 focal lesion on MRI showed a significantly longer TTP to CRAB-MM (median not reached) compared with those with BMPC ≥ 60% (median, 33.2 months; 95% CI, 21.7–44.7) or an FLCr ≥ 100 (median, 28.0 months; 95% CI, 17.2–38.8) (p = 0.014). The 2-year risks of progression for each group were 28.6% (95% CI, 8.0–74.3%), 36.4% (95% CI, 12.7–77.9%), and 0.0% (no events before 2 years), respectively (Fig. 1B). The 2-year risk of progression was significantly higher in younger patients (≤ 65) (20.6% [95% CI, 2.6–38.6] vs. 0.0%, p = 0.046) (Fig. 2); however, other prognostic factors, including stage, cytogenetics, did not impact on TTP to CRAB-MM. Of the 10 patients who progressed to CRAB-MM, their median TTP to CRAB-MM was 22.6 months (95% CI, 14.4–30.8), and the median PFS1 for first-line treatment was 62.6 months (95% CI, 43.7–81.5). A total of 8 patients died during follow-up: 6 from progressive disease and 2 from unrelated causes. The 5-year OS rate was 74.1% (± 9.6%).

In group 2, the median age was 68 years (range, 46–89). Nine patients (24%) and six patients (16%) were classified as ISS stage III and R-ISS stage III, respectively. Thirteen patients (35%) had met two or more SLiM criteria. Seventeen patients (46%) underwent autologous stem cell transplantation. The responses to first-line treatment were as follows: complete response, 60% (n = 22); very good partial response, 8% (n = 3); and partial response, 22% (n = 8). The estimated median PFS1 was 56.8 months (95% CI, 21.2–92.4). A total of 7 patients died during follow-up: 3 from progressive disease, 2 from treatment-related cause, 1 unrelated cause, and 1 unknown. The median OS was 96.0 months (95% CI, 30.5–161.5), and the 5-year OS rate was 57.3% (± 16.0%).

Advances in the molecular and clinical characterization of precursor lesions of MM have led to increasing interest in early detection as well as therapeutic intervention, aiming to prevent progression to overt disease and to improve survival outcomes. This approach has emerged as one of the most intensely debated topics in contemporary myeloma research.

SMM is an asymptomatic plasma-cell proliferative disorder associated with a high risk of progression to symptomatic MM or amyloidosis[5]. Given its heterogeneous clinical trajectories, multiple sets of criteria have been established to define patients at increased risk of progression to overt MM[19, 20, 5]. They have incorporated factors including the level of monoclonal protein, BMPC percentage, the presence of immunoparesis, and/or the serum FLCr, to define high-risk groups with a significantly increased probability of progression to overt MM. These efforts eventually led to the identification of specific criteria—namely, BMPC ≥ 60%, serum FLCr ≥ 100, and the presence of > 1 focal lesion on MRI to define “ultra high-risk” SMM. Multiple studies confirmed that patients with SMM who met these criteria had an approximately 80% probability of progression to overt MM within 2 years[9, 10, 13, 12, 11]. Consequently, in the 2014 International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria, these features were incorporated as myeloma-defining events[8]. This inclusion allows treatment initiation before end-organ damage occurs, potentially preserving the patient’s performance status and thereby improving clinical outcomes.

The reclassification was subsequently challenged by several reports published after 2014, demonstrating a prolonged TTP to MM in contrast to prior findings. Wu et al., for instance, detailed the outcomes of 22 SMM patients with BMPC ≥ 60%[14]. With a median follow-up of 67 months, their median TTP to MM was 31 months, and 6 patients (27%) remained without progression to MM. While this paper is potentially the sole publication reporting the outcomes for SMM patients with BMPC ≥ 60% in the post-2014 era, there are more studies that have specifically analyzed the outcomes for SMM patients a FLCr ≥ 100. In the aforementioned study by Wu et al., the median TTP was 40 months among 72 patients with SMM and an FLCr ≥ 100, with 32 patients (44%) remaining progression-free to MM[14]. In a Danish population-based cohort study of 321 patients with SMM, 23 patients (11%) had an FLCr ≥ 100; however, this was not associated with a shorter TTP to MM[21]. More recently, a study analyzing 65 patients with an FLCr ≥ 100 reported a median TTP to MM of 32 months (95% CI, 25–59)[22]. To date, no study has reevaluated the impact of having > 1 focal lesion on MRI since the 2014 criteria update.

In the current study, we included 10 patients with BMPC ≥ 60%, with a median TTP to CRAB-MM of 33.2 months (95% CI, 21.7–44.7), and 13 patients with FLCr ≥ 100, with a median TTP to CARB-MM of 28.0 months (95% CI, 17.2–38.8). These outcomes are consistent with those reported in studies published after 2014, which showed improved TTP to CRAB-MM compared to the studies published before 2014. The apparently improved outcomes for SLiM-only MM patients who also meet other biomarker criteria, such as BMPC ≥ 60% or FLCr ≥ 100, may be attributable to the proactive early use of modern imaging modalities, including MRI and PET-CT[16]

Due to reports showing a longer TTP in SLiM-only MM patients compared with studies conducted before 2014, some suggest that rather than automatically diagnosing SLiM-only MM patients as candidates for anti-myeloma treatment, a more conservative approach should be applied when considering treatment initiation[16]. Conversely, several reports already indicate that early intervention in high-risk SMM prolongs survival[23, 24], and considering the studies showing that SLiM-only MM patients have a better survival outcome[18], proceeding with aggressive treatment is also considered a viable option. The answer to this question will likely come from ongoing studies prospectively analyzing the natural course of SMM patients, such as the IFM 2017-04 trial (CARRISMM, NCT04144387). The outcomes of trials described in Table 2.

Table 2
**Median time to progression (TTP) to multiple myeloma and 2-year risk of progression of SLiM-only MM patients without immediate treatment** BMPC%, bone marrow plasma cell percentage; FLCr, serum free light chain ratio; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; CI, confidence interval
Category	Study	N	Median TTP (months, 95% CI)	Risk of progression at 2 years (95% CI)
BMPC ≥ 60%	Combined early publications[16]	29	9.2 (6.0-15.6)	86.2% (65.7–94.5)
	Combined later publications[16]	22	30.3 (18.7–62.9)	45.5% (20.1–62.8)
	The current study	9	33.2 (21.7–44.7)	28.6% (8.0–74.3)
FLCr ≥ 100	Combined early publications[16]	97	15.3 (9.4–19.1)	73.0% (62.4–80.6)
	Combined later publications[16]	228	48.1 (40.5–64.9)	31.6% (25.3–37.4)
	The current study	12	28.0 (17.2–38.8)	36.4% (12.7–77.9)
> 1 Focal lesion on MRI	Combined early publications[16]	41	15.1 (10.5–33.0)	67.3% (49.0-49.1)
> 1 Focal lesion on MRI	The current study	13	Not reached	0.0% (0.0-25.9)

In our study, the risk of progression to MM among patients with > 1 focal lesion on MRI was even lower than that reported in studies published before 2014. Since no subsequent study has re-evaluated this issue, further analysis is not possible. The apparently improved outcomes for SLiM-only MM patients who also meet other biomarker criteria, such as BMPC ≥ 60% or FLCr ≥ 100, may be attributable to the proactive early use of modern imaging modalities, including MRI and PET-CT[16]. Such active screening could identify patients who would previously have been classified as having SMM but are now diagnosed with symptomatic MM. Notably, the disease entity “multiple solitary plasmacytoma (MSP)” was included in the 2003 IMWG diagnostic criteria and encompassed patients with > 1 focal area of bone destruction or extramedullary clonal plasma cell tumors[25]. This entity was removed in the 2014 update, when the SLiM criteria were incorporated as myeloma-defining events, and is no longer investigated. Consequently, only historical records remain, with the largest study to date being a Chinese analysis of nine patients[26]. In that study, patients were relatively young (median age, 49) and received either bortezomib-containing regimens (n = 6) or conventional chemotherapy (n = 3). After a median follow-up of 28.5 months, none progressed to MM. Given the limited data on patients in this category, larger-scale studies are warranted for individuals with > 1 focal lesion on MRI.

Interestingly, the 2-year risk of progression was significantly higher in patients aged 65 years or younger (20.6% vs. 0.0%). This was also found in a US study, were the 4-year cumulative incidence of progression was 34% for patients under 60 years, which was significantly higher compared to 28% for those aged 60–70 years, and 18% for those over 70 years[27]. Potential explanations include competing risks in older populations, as they are more likely to have other comorbidities that may precede the development of active MM. Since the risk of precursor disease progressing to active MM varies over time[5], a significant number of elderly patients with identified precursor lesions may have already entered an indolent stage, resulting in a lower risk of progression to MM.

Although our study did not perform a direct comparison with CRAB-MM patients, the outcomes of the 37 patients in this study who were diagnosed with SLiM-only MM and immediately started treatment showed a numerical superiority (median PFS1, 56.8 months; median OS, 96.0 months) compared to the outcomes reported in a recently published nationwide population-based cohort study in Korea (median time to next treatment after the first-line treatment 26.61 months; median OS from the first-line treatment, 61.88 months)[28]. This also supports the benefit of early intervention.

Other than its retrospective nature, our study has several limitations. The relatively small number of patients and short follow-up duration limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions, including subgroup comparisons. MRI scans were not centrally reviewed. However, a central review is more crucial when confirming the absence of lesions; since once focal lesions were identified, a central review was deemed unnecessary. Unlike previous studies, 93% of our patients underwent MRI, which enabled us to detect both focal and disseminated bone lesions—representing a notable strength of our study.

In conclusion, our study demonstrated that patients diagnosed with SLiM-only MM exhibited an extended TTP without treatment compared to prior studies, particularly those with only focal MRI lesions. In addition, the treatment resulted in favorable outcomes, which may support the benefit of earlier initiation of treatment for the patients. Therefore, it is necessary to have a thorough discussion about the benefits and risks before initiating treatment of patients with SLiM-only MM.

All procedures involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committees, as well as with the Declaration of Helsinki or comparable ethical standards. The exemptions of obtaining the informed consents were approved by the institutional review board of each institute. This study was approved by the institutional review boards of each participating site (SMC 2024-03-048; KC24RIDI0380; SNUH-2408-026-1558; AMC2024-0825; CNUHH-2025-077; DAUH IRB-24-085; UUH IRB 2024-03-039; KHUH IRB 2025-04-051) and carried out by the Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Party (KMM-2401 trial). All authors declare no competing interests.

Author Contribution

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. JHY, DHY, SSP, SHJ, and KK designed the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the first draft; JHL, HJL, JCJ, and YK collected the data and carried out analyses; pared figures; CKM and KK critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version before submission.

Acknowledgments

This research did not receive funding. The authors thank all clinical teams at Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Party and respective sites for providing medical care for patients and proceeding clinical trials.

Data Availability

Data used in the article is available from the corresponding author in case of reasonable request.

Mafra A, Laversanne M, Marcos-Gragera R, Chaves HVS, McShane C, Bray F, Znaor A (2025) The global multiple myeloma incidence and mortality burden in 2022 and predictions for 2045. J Natl Cancer Inst 117(5):907–914. 10.1093/jnci/djae321
Malard F, Neri P, Bahlis NJ, Terpos E, Moukalled N, Hungria VTM, Manier S, Mohty M (2024) Multiple myeloma. Nat reviews Disease primers 10(1):45. 10.1038/s41572-024-00529-7
Landgren O, Kyle RA, Pfeiffer RM, Katzmann JA, Caporaso NE, Hayes RB, Dispenzieri A, Kumar S, Clark RJ, Baris D, Hoover R, Rajkumar SV (2009) Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) consistently precedes multiple myeloma: a prospective study. Blood 113(22):5412–5417. 10.1182/blood-2008-12-194241
Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Rajkumar SV, Larson DR, Plevak MF, Offord JR, Dispenzieri A, Katzmann JA, Melton LJ 3rd (2006) Prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med 354(13):1362–1369. 10.1056/NEJMoa054494
Kyle RA, Remstein ED, Therneau TM, Dispenzieri A, Kurtin PJ, Hodnefield JM, Larson DR, Plevak MF, Jelinek DF, Fonseca R, Melton LJ 3rd, Rajkumar SV (2007) Clinical course and prognosis of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 356(25):2582–2590. 10.1056/NEJMoa070389
Landgren O (2017) Shall we treat smoldering multiple myeloma in the near future? Hematology American Society of Hematology Education Program 2017. 1194–204. 10.1182/asheducation-2017.1.194
Mateos MV, Kumar S, Dimopoulos MA, González-Calle V, Kastritis E, Hajek R, De Larrea CF, Morgan GJ, Merlini G, Goldschmidt H, Geraldes C, Gozzetti A, Kyriakou C, Garderet L, Hansson M, Zamagni E, Fantl D, Leleu X, Kim BS, Esteves G, Ludwig H, Usmani S, Min CK, Qi M, Ukropec J, Weiss BM, Rajkumar SV, Durie BGM, San-Miguel J (2020) International Myeloma Working Group risk stratification model for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). Blood cancer J 10(10):102. 10.1038/s41408-020-00366-3
Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, Kumar S, Hillengass J, Kastritis E, Richardson P, Landgren O, Paiva B, Dispenzieri A, Weiss B, LeLeu X, Zweegman S, Lonial S, Rosinol L, Zamagni E, Jagannath S, Sezer O, Kristinsson SY, Caers J, Usmani SZ, Lahuerta JJ, Johnsen HE, Beksac M, Cavo M, Goldschmidt H, Terpos E, Kyle RA, Anderson KC, Durie BG, Miguel JF (2014) International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 15(12):e538–548. 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70442-5
Rajkumar SV, Larson D, Kyle RA (2011) Diagnosis of smoldering multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 365(5):474–475. 10.1056/NEJMc1106428
Kastritis E, Terpos E, Moulopoulos L, Spyropoulou-Vlachou M, Kanellias N, Eleftherakis-Papaiakovou E, Gkotzamanidou M, Migkou M, Gavriatopoulou M, Roussou M, Tasidou A, Dimopoulos MA (2013) Extensive bone marrow infiltration and abnormal free light chain ratio identifies patients with asymptomatic myeloma at high risk for progression to symptomatic disease. Leukemia 27(4):947–953. 10.1038/leu.2012.309
Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Weber MA, Bäuerle T, Ayyaz S, Heiss C, Hielscher T, Moehler TM, Egerer G, Neben K, Ho AD, Kauczor HU, Delorme S, Goldschmidt H (2010) Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin oncology: official J Am Soc Clin Oncol 28(9):1606–1610. 10.1200/jco.2009.25.5356
Merz M, Hielscher T, Wagner B, Sauer S, Shah S, Raab MS, Jauch A, Neben K, Hose D, Egerer G, Weber MA, Delorme S, Goldschmidt H, Hillengass J (2014) Predictive value of longitudinal whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia 28(9):1902–1908. 10.1038/leu.2014.75
Kastritis E, Moulopoulos LA, Terpos E, Koutoulidis V, Dimopoulos MA (2014) The prognostic importance of the presence of more than one focal lesion in spine MRI of patients with asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma. Leukemia 28(12):2402–2403. 10.1038/leu.2014.230
Wu V, Moshier E, Leng S, Barlogie B, Cho HJ, Jagannath S, Madduri D, Mazumdar M, Parekh S, Chari A (2018) Risk stratification of smoldering multiple myeloma: predictive value of free light chains and group-based trajectory modeling. Blood Adv 2(12):1470–1479. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018016998
Henriot B, Rouger E, Rousseau C, Escoffre M, Sébillot M, Bendavid C, Minvielle S, Avet-Loiseau H, Decaux O, Moreau C (2019) Prognostic value of involved/uninvolved free light chain ratio determined by Freelite and N Latex FLC assays for identification of high-risk smoldering myeloma patients. Clin Chem Lab Med 57(9):1397–1405. 10.1515/cclm-2018-1369
Ludwig H, Kainz S, Schreder M, Zojer N, Hinke A (2023) SLiM CRAB criteria revisited: temporal trends in prognosis of patients with smoldering multiple myeloma who meet the definition of 'biomarker-defined early multiple myeloma'-a systematic review with meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 58:101910. 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101910
Touzeau C, Moreau P, Perrot A, Hulin C, Dib M, Tiab M, Caillot D, Facon T, Leleu X, van de Donk NWCJ, Broijl A, Zweegman S, Levin M-D, Delforge M, Pei L, Vanquickelberghe V, De Boer C, Kampfenkel T, Vermeulen J, Sonneveld P null n Daratumumab + bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TE NDMM): Baseline SLiM-CRAB based subgroup analysis of CASSIOPEIA. J Clin Oncol 38 (15_suppl):8538–8538. 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.8538
Ho PJ, Moore E, Wellard C, Quach H, Blacklock H, Harrrison SJ, MacDonald EJ, McQuilten ZK, Wood EM, Mollee P, Spencer A (2024) The impact of biomarkers of malignancy (IMWG SLiM criteria) in myeloma in a real-world population: Clinical characteristics, therapy and outcomes from the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry (ANZ MRDR). Br J Haematol 205(4):1337–1345. 10.1111/bjh.19624
Dispenzieri A, Kyle RA, Katzmann JA, Therneau TM, Larson D, Benson J, Clark RJ, Melton LJ 3rd, Gertz MA, Kumar SK, Fonseca R, Jelinek DF, Rajkumar SV (2008) Immunoglobulin free light chain ratio is an independent risk factor for progression of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. Blood 111(2):785–789. 10.1182/blood-2007-08-108357
Pérez-Persona E, Vidriales MB, Mateo G, García-Sanz R, Mateos MV, de Coca AG, Galende J, Martín-Nuñez G, Alonso JM, de Las Heras N, Hernández JM, Martín A, López-Berges C, Orfao A, San Miguel JF (2007) New criteria to identify risk of progression in monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance and smoldering multiple myeloma based on multiparameter flow cytometry analysis of bone marrow plasma cells. Blood 110(7):2586–2592. 10.1182/blood-2007-05-088443
Sørrig R, Klausen TW, Salomo M, Vangsted AJ, Østergaard B, Gregersen H, Frølund UC, Andersen NF, Helleberg C, Andersen KT, Pedersen RS, Pedersen P, Abildgaard N, Gimsing P (2016) Smoldering multiple myeloma risk factors for progression: a Danish population-based cohort study. Eur J Haematol 97(3):303–309. 10.1111/ejh.12728
Akhlaghi T, Maclachlan K, Korde N, Mailankody S, Lesokhin A, Hassoun H, Lu SX, Patel D, Shah U, Tan C, Derkach A, Lahoud O, Landau HJ, Shah GL, Scordo M, Chung DJ, Giralt SA, Usmani SZ, Landgren O, Hultcrantz M (2025) Evaluating serum free light chain ratio as a biomarker in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 110(2):493–497. 10.3324/haematol.2024.285531
Dimopoulos MA, Voorhees PM, Schjesvold F, Cohen YC, Hungria V, Sandhu I, Lindsay J, Baker RI, Suzuki K, Kosugi H, Levin MD, Beksac M, Stockerl-Goldstein K, Oriol A, Mikala G, Garate G, Theunissen K, Spicka I, Mylin AK, Bringhen S, Uttervall K, Pula B, Medvedova E, Cowan AJ, Moreau P, Mateos MV, Goldschmidt H, Ahmadi T, Sha L, Cortoos A, Katz EG, Rousseau E, Li L, Dennis RM, Carson R, Rajkumar SV (2025) Daratumumab or Active Monitoring for High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma. N Engl J Med 392(18):1777–1788. 10.1056/NEJMoa2409029
Lonial S, Jacobus S, Fonseca R, Weiss M, Kumar S, Orlowski RZ, Kaufman JL, Yacoub AM, Buadi FK, O'Brien T, Matous JV, Anderson DM, Emmons RV, Mahindra A, Wagner LI, Dhodapkar MV, Rajkumar SV (2020) Randomized Trial of Lenalidomide Versus Observation in Smoldering Multiple Myeloma. J Clin oncology: official J Am Soc Clin Oncol 38(11):1126–1137. 10.1200/jco.19.01740
International Myeloma Working Group (2003) monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the. Br J Haematol 121(5):749–757
Zhang Y, Qi J, Qiu L (2013) Multiple Solitary Plasmacytoma: Characteristics, Response To Therapy, Survival In Nine Patients From a Single Institute. Blood 122(21):5383–5383. 10.1182/blood.V122.21.5383.5383
Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. (0007-1048 (Print))
Park SS, Park Y, Yoon S, Lee D, Jeong J, Kim K (2025) Real-world treatment patterns, outcomes, and economic costs by lines of therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a nationwide population-based cohort study in South Korea. Blood Res 60(1):26. 10.1007/s44313-025-00069-3

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
13 Dec, 2025
Reviews received at journal
07 Dec, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
16 Nov, 2025
Reviewers invited by journal
14 Nov, 2025
Editor assigned by journal
05 Nov, 2025
Submission checks completed at journal
05 Nov, 2025
First submitted to journal
21 Oct, 2025

You are reading this latest preprint version

Real-world outcomes of SLiM-only multiple myeloma: Korean Multicenter Retrospective analysis (KMM2401 study)

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Patients and Methods

Patients

Statistical analysis

Results

Baseline characteristics

Clinical course

Discussion

Declarations

Author Contribution

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1