Welcome back to Plenary Session.

This is Ash Abstract number three.

This is the Ascent Trial, and we're going to talk about it today on this video and on this

podcast.

If you're listening at home, you should check out the video feed.

I got some slides.

This is presented by Shaji Kumar and colleagues, and listeners of Plenary Session said,

you got to take a look at this abstract. You got to watch the presentation, listen to what the speaker said, and provide a commentary on that. I did listen to everything the speaker said. And indeed, I had a lot of problems with what he said. It was very unscientific, in my opinion. I'm going to walk you through that on this video today. This is fixed duration therapy with DRRA CRD, high-risk smoldering myeloma

and uncontrolled study called the Ascent trial. Number one problem. There needs to be some rule

for who gets to name trials. I mean, if you do an uncontrolled study with a medium sample

size, do you really deserve a name like Ascent? I think it's a bit much. It's a bit dramatic.

Let's take a look at what happened

to this study. This is uncontrolled. Uncontrolled. That's the key word. There's no control

arm. It's just people with Hiris smolding Maloma. They're brought in for induction with

carphylizumib, revelmid, deratumab decks. Then consolidation with your favorite carphylzumib, Ravlimit, Deratumab Dex, and then maintenance

with, of course, linoidamide and Derritumab.

And eventually, eventually, eventually all treatment stops eventually, eventually, and even here too,

it stops.

These are of course people with an asymptomatic, pre-cancerous condition called Hirus Smorling

Myeloma. It's a condition that we

don't have any randomized data that shows treating is preferable to watching. We have a

terrible study from the Spanish group that didn't use pet at entrance and is so underpowered. The OS

...