Multiple Myeloma in 2023 Ways: From Trials to Real Life
, Vittorio Del Fabro 2,†, Nunziatina Laura Parrinello 2, Alessandro Allegra 3, Uroš Markovic 2, Cirino Botta 4, Fabrizio Accardi 5, Iolanda Donatella Vincelli 6, Salvatore Leotta 2, Federica Elia 2, Benedetta Esposito 1, Bruno Garibaldi 1, Gabriele Sapuppo 1, Alessandra Orofino 1, Alessandra Romano 7, Giuseppe A. Palumbo 8, Francesco Di Raimondo 1,2,7 and Concetta Conticello 2,*,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I believe this is an interesting review that nicely summarises past and present clinical trials in NDMM as well as in relapsed patients.
I would like to see a section on any trials (past or ongoing) or RWE studies that focus on patients with extramedullary disease either at diagnosis or at relapse. What is the treatment consensus (if any) for these patients according to the IMWG?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This review article reported the current status and future direction in both transplant-eligible and –ineligible patients with multiple myeloma. The authors compared the data between clinical trials and real-life experiences in multiple myeloma. They also mentioned the current status of novel therapy including bispecific monoclonal antibodies and CAR-T cells. They emphasized the lack of standard treatment for relapsed and/or refractory patients as an unmet need. Overall, the authors adequately interpreted the current status of clinical trials; however, there are several concerns regarding the manuscript that the authors need to clarify.
Minor comments:
1. In the Introduction, the prognosis of patients with penta-refractory or triple-class refractory should be described by citing the literature.
2. It is necessary to state the purpose of this review at the end of the Introduction.
3. It is better to explain the characteristics of each method of frailty assessment (Table 2) in the text.
4. Compared to descriptions of clinical trials, there were lack of explanations of real-life experiences in the text. It is recommended that the real-life data (Table 3 and 4) be explained in more detail.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors revised the manuscript appropriately according to the reviewers' comments.
