Learn how you can stall the development of full-blown Multiple Myeloma with evidence-based nutritional and supplementation therapies.
Click the orange button to the right to learn more.
Should we treat patients with myeloma with multidrug, multitransplant combinations with the goal of potentially curing a subset of patients, recognizing that the risk of adverse events and effect on quality of life will be substantial?
Hi David- I was diagnosed with stage 1 multiple myeloma with an m-spike of 0.86 in July of 2020. I had started Revlimid (Lenalidomide- 10mg), Velcade (Bortezomib- 4mg), Dexamethasone (40 mg) and the m-spike fell to 0.32.
At that point my oncologist reduced the dosage and stopped the bortezomib injections. Last month my m-spike has risen again to 0.56 .
Now the oncologist has asked me to start Lenalidomide (15mg)+bortezomib (
The effects of the medicines are way more than the actual condition, I had no other symptoms then a little protein showing up in my urine and low grade fever at evening times rarely 2 or 3 days in a month. Sam
To be sure, if cure were known to be possible (with a reasonable probability) in myeloma, it would undoubtedly be the preferred therapeutic goal of most patients and physicians. But this is not the case. Myeloma is generally not considered a curable disease; however, new definitions of cure have been suggested, including operational cure, which is defined as a sustained complete response (CR) for a prolonged period.1,2 Cure vs control is debated because the strategies currently being tested are not truly curative but rather are intended to maximize response rates in the hope that they will translate into an operational cure for a subset of patients.
For decades, the treatment of myeloma was restricted to conventional chemotherapy with alkylators and corticosteroids, and the question of cure vs control never arose. The response rate with alkylators and corticosteroids was only about 50%, and CR3,4 was rare. Cure was never a goal of therapy because it was assumed to be unattainable. Instead, the goal was to control the disease as much as possible, providing the best quality of life to the patient for the longest duration by judicious, intermittent use of the 2 available classes of active chemotherapeutic agents.
“A vast range of disorders—from indolent to fast-growing lesions—are labelled as cancer. Therefore, we believe that several changes should be made to the approach to cancer screening and care, such as use of new terminology for indolent and precancerous disorders.
We propose the term indolent lesion of epithelial origin, or IDLE, for those lesions (currently labelled as cancers) and their precursors that are unlikely to cause harm if they are left untreated. Furthermore, precursors of cancer or high-risk disorders should not have the term cancer in them.
The rationale for this change in approach is that indolent lesions with low malignant potential are common, and screening brings indolent lesions and their precursors to clinical attention, which leads to overdiagnosis and, if unrecognised, possible overtreatment.
To minimise that potential, new strategies should be adopted to better define and manage IDLEs. Screening guidelines should be revised to lower the chance of detection of minimal-risk IDLEs and inconsequential cancers with the same energy traditionally used to increase the sensitivity of screening tests.
Changing the terminology for some of the lesions currently referred to as cancer will allow physicians to shift medicolegal notions and perceived risk to reflect the evolving understanding of biology, be more judicious about when a biopsy should be done, and organise studies and registries that offer observation or less invasive approaches for indolent disease. Emphasis on avoidance of harm while assuring benefit will improve screening and treatment of patients and will be equally effective in the prevention of death from cancer…”