Are we better off calling this MGUS? Are we better off calling this smoldering myeloma? Should we average it to 7.5? What is really the best approach here?

Yeah, again, assuming that the IgG kappa monoclonal protein and the light chains don't kind of meet the threshold for smoldering myeloma, then I think it's reasonable to call it a muggers.

Now, the 5 to 10% tells me it's less than 10%.

I'm not just going to put a number to it.

If it was 10% or more, then they would have called it as 10% or more.

So it's at least not reaching that threshold.

That's the way I would look at it.

time gets acknowledged.

Shaji, today, can you touch on how do you pick one option over another here, keeping if the disease is len and dara exposed versus this disease being refractory to these options?

Yeah.

It's a good problem that we are facing right now for the treatment of first relapse multiple myeloma.

In the past, the typical approach had been somebody who is coming off len maintenance.

We had the choice of adding the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab, either in combination with pomalidomide or with carfilzomib.

It could be either daratumumab or isatuximab.

And those regimens were associated with good progression-free survival, especially the carfilzomib-based regimens, approximately three years roughly in those patient population.

Right.

With that background in mind, Shaji, can you touch on the endurance study design and what are we trying to address here?

I think phase three trial actually addresses a crucial concept in the disease.

It's not necessarily about len maintenance or some other maintenance as much as it drives home the point that more is not necessarily better.

I think when we started the clinical trial or designed the clinical trial, originally it was conceptually focused on, yes, len maintenance continuously is what everyone's doing.

Is that really needed? Can we do less? And we said, "Let's do two years," based on the totality of data that was available at that time.

But the question has become even more germane over the past fifteen years that we've been following these patients because trial after trial has been designed to give patients treatment until the disease progression without necessarily exploring the alternative option that a limited duration therapy could be sufficient.

And I think that's where the impact of the study is, which expands well beyond just the question of when somebody's on len maintenance, do we just give len maintenance for a fixed duration? I think that question is very well answered by the study.

For this transplant eligible patient, can you forego transplant if MRD is negative after induction therapy?