Multiple Myeloma an incurable disease, but I have spent the last 25 years in remission using a blend of conventional oncology and evidence-based nutrition, supplementation, and lifestyle therapies from peer-reviewed studies that your oncologist probably hasn't told you about.
Click the orange button to the right to learn more about what you can start doing today.
“Myeloma emerging therapies?” It’s important for newly diagnosed myeloma patients to know that there are many new therapies that have recently been developed and are currently being developed. All that can put a patient into remission.
Unfortunately, nowhere in the interview linked and excerpted below is any mention, any referral to:
It is well-established that chemotherapy and radiation cause:
Exposing the newly diagnosed myeloma patient to myeloma emerging therapies will continue to increase MM patients five-year survival rates which is terrific. But the more NDMM patients who live 10, 15 years means that the more MM survivors will experience inflammation, senescence, DNA damage, secondary cancers and treatment-induced relapse.
And I think that most, if not all NDMM patients would accept this trade-off of more time for increased adverse events if it weren’t for the fact that there are evidence-based non-conventional therapies cited to reduce the risks of all of those adverse events.
Unfortunately, nutrition, supplementation and lifestyle therapies are not FDA approved and never will be. Let me be clear. I am not anti-conventional MM oncology. I am pro evidence-based non-conventional theories. It really is that simple.
I had an aha moment when I read Dr. Vincent Rajkumar’s essay about the overarching goal of multiple myeloma emerging therapies- Treatment of Myeloma- Cure vs. Control.
To learn more about both conventional and evidence-based non-conventional myeloma therapies scroll down the page, write a question or a comment and I will reply to you ASAP.
“At a recent Around the Practice® program, a panel of experts discussed the most recent practice-changing developments in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, including
In addition to summarizing the discussion, Landgren also highlighted the lingering unmet needs in the space regarding insufficient biomarkers, inadequate discrimination between high-risk and lower-risk disease, and the increasing importance of multidisciplinary teams. He also discussed the utility of minimal residual disease (MRD) tracking…
Landgren: It’s almost like a meteor rain; there are so many different [emerging treatment] options. A commonality is that [many of] the upcoming drugs that are coming are immunotherapy agents, [including] many of the antibodies. [There are] bispecifics, trispecifics in development, naked antibodies, and cell therapies. There are many other options as well. Additionally, the drugs that have recently arrived have already begun to change the standard of care quite a bit…
The unmet needs for myeloma have shifted over time. We used to have unlimited unmet needs because we lacked drugs. Nowadays, we have a lot of drugs [available], but still, unfortunately, there are patients who don’t do well in the upfront setting. We’ve referred to these patients as [having] high-risk disease; we lack better markers to identify true high-risk disease. [Current] cytogenetic markers are not good enough. [As such], many of the patients we label as having high-risk disease don’t [actually] have high-risk disease. Also, unfortunately, some patients who are not labeled as having high-risk disease still have poor outcomes. So, they [should have been labeled as] high-risk. We need better markers. We also need better drugs for patients with high-risk disease…
Multidisciplinary teams are increasingly important in the field of multiple myeloma because the therapies are increasingly complicated; more things can happen [during treatment]. The patient may experience infections, for example, and may need to have additional infusions to boost their immune function…
Today we discussed how the field (of myeloma emerging therapies) is changing in the newly-diagnosed setting. We talked about the traditional nomenclature of [patients with] transplant-eligible and non–transplant-eligible [disease], and our discussion put everything on the spot.
Do patients have to undergo transplantation? Is eligibility the right terminology, or should [we divide patients according to] those who don’t want to undergo transplantation vs those who may need a transplant? I tweaked the terminology here to be controversial, but the field is undergoing many shifts.
Transplantation is going to be less important in the future as a result of better drugs. We have better immunotherapy drugs, [including] both antibodies and CAR T-cell [therapies], coming to earlier lines [of therapy], including in newly diagnosed patients; that will change the field.
It also brings together older patients and younger patients, as well as frail patients vs those that are in better shape; everyone has a great chance to access effective therapy.
We also talked about the relapsed/refractory setting. We had a patient case in which minimal residual disease [MRD] negativity [was achieved] after 3 or more prior lines of therapy [had failed]. That’s something that we never saw in the past. This [outcome] was, again, a result of access to immunotherapy.
The future looks bright, [however], we still need curative drugs, and we need access to established cures for patients with myeloma…”