Background
Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is a precursor to active multiple myeloma, characterized by asymptomatic clonal plasma cell proliferation. Early intervention in high-risk SMM may delay progression, but inconsistent risk definitions complicate patient selection. This study compares the AQUILA trial criteria and the 2/20/20 model to identify which better predicts progression risk.
Study Design
This cohort study analyzed data from two populations: the Icelandic iStopMM screening cohort (2016-2021) and the Danish DALY-CARE clinical cohort (2002-2025). High-risk SMM was defined by AQUILA criteria (immunoparesis, M-protein >3.0 g/dL, IgA isotype, bone marrow plasma cells >50%, or FLC ratio ≥8) or the 2/20/20 model (M-protein >2.0 g/dL, bone marrow plasma cells >20%, or FLC ratio >20). Progression risk was assessed by treatment initiation.
Key Findings
In the iStopMM cohort (n=193), 34% met AQUILA high-risk criteria versus 8% by 2/20/20. In DALY-CARE (n=1147), 55% were high-risk by AQUILA versus 19% by 2/20/20. Progression rates were markedly higher for 2/20/20-defined high-risk patients: 44.1% at 2 years (annual rate 27.3%) compared to 27.0% (14.5% annual) for AQUILA.
Expert Commentary
The 2/20/20 model captures a smaller, higher-risk subset with more aggressive biology, making it a superior tool for clinical trial enrollment and early treatment decisions. AQUILA’s broader criteria may dilute therapeutic benefit by including lower-risk patients.
Conclusion
The 2/20/20 model more precisely identifies SMM patients who may benefit from early intervention, with progression rates double those of AQUILA-classified patients. This refinement could optimize resource allocation and trial design.