 So, this is a difficult question because there is so much new, but in Europe at least the concept for young transplant eligible patients is still the same. We use induction therapy with triple treatment, preferentially an immediate proteasome inhibitor in dexamethasone, then one transplant, patients with high risk disease, possibly two transplants, consolidation, two to four cycles, and then maintenance therapy, which is generally the might, and there are new treatments for maintenance coming. Consolidation is an important add-on to induction therapy and transplant. But the question is how you really name it? Because consolidation adds additional cycles, and it's not quite clear whether it would be beneficial to use, let's say, instead of four cycles, six cycles or eight cycles before transplant and then transplant, or to use four cycles transplant and four cycles consolidation. But what we know is if you add additional cycles, we improve the outcome. So for newly diagnosed myeloma, of course, there are new treatments coming, they are on the horizon already. It is always a triple combination therapy, a standard one. Again, proteasome inhibitor, imid, dexamethasone, but what is new is now the add-on is a monoclonal antibody. TARATUMOMAP is the first one. We have wonderful data about TARATUMOMAP usage with VMP in combination with RD in transplant non-illigial patients. And there will be data presented this year with TARATUMOMAP used in first-line consolidation and maintenance in transplanted illigial patients. TARATUMOMAP or monoclonal antibodies add, of course, I think this is something which we are now saying, of course, in terms of quality of response, deepness of remission and progression free survival. And this is very likely, it hasn't been shown as yet convincingly, improvement in overall survival. So there is no indication for treatment in low-risk and intermediate-risk smoldering myeloma. At this point of time, there is no indication for treating high-risk smoldering myeloma because we have to wait. We have to wait for more substantial data. We have only one study which shows the survival benefit in 119 patients. But that study is rather an old one because it has been started 10 or 12 years ago without proper imaging and so on. So what we need is very good evidence which convinces everybody that treatment should be started early because we have a discrepancy here. Some people say we cannot cure myeloma. And the same people say we can cure smoldering myeloma. So there is a conflict. I personally assume and I'm sure we can cure some patients with myeloma at this point of time already. And we will be able to cure high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma in the future. But we have to be careful. We don't want to over-treat many patients. And there are high-dose chemotherapy regimen which induce high toxicity and even mortality in patients. So in order to use this in clinical practice as a recommendation we need to have to rely on solid data proving that this is important for patients and what would be particularly important to find out which patient really benefits from early treatment and where we can defer treatment for quite a long time for even for several years. So we have to look at data before we come up with good recommendations. The main challenge is the nature of the disease. It's a very complex disease. Myeloma is not a single disease. And it changes all over during the course of the disease. So when you start up with a patient and you start treatment, the clonal composition, the composition of clones is different as compared to one or three years or five years or ten years after starting first-line treatment. So what there is involvement of new clones, old clones may be suppressed, new mutations come up, the clones become more and more chemo-resistant. So it's a continuum and it's a very heterogeneous disease and what we know now is if a patient is affected by the disease and has multiple lesions, let's say, in the skeleton, you may find different mutations in different sites. So showing the complexity of the disease. I think what is important if we are talking with patients and communicating, I think it's of paramount importance that patients are aware of the manifests of the disease, of treatments, side effects of treatments, the more they know, the more they can themselves influence the management. And it's easier with informed patients to work together because we can discuss different options. If you are not aware of all these new developments as a patient, you leave all the decisions to your care team, but you won't be, I mean, it's your life, it's your health. So you won't understand better what's going on and you won't select treatments which are probably fit you more than other treatments in terms of convenience, toxicity and so on. So I would love to see all my alumna patients being informed as well as, I mean, the medical community because then we can interact on a different level and that would benefit patients.