Cited by 37Multiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Immuno-PRISM: A Randomized Phase II Platform Study of Bispecific Antibodies in High-Risk Smoldering Myeloma

Abstract

Background: B-cell Maturation antigen-directed immunotherapies have demonstrated significant efficacy in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), with recent approval of the bispecific antibody teclistamab (TEC) . However, the use of immunotherapy in high-risk smoldering myeloma (HR-SMM) has not been examined to date. We hypothesized that bispecific antibody therapy would have greater benefit in HR-SMM due to this population having a more intact immune system, lower disease burden and may therefore have a higher efficacy and less toxicity compared to RRMM. Based on previous studies of lenalidomide and dexamethasone demonstrating benefit in HR-SMM, the Immuno-PRISM trial is studying various bispecific antibodies against a control arm of lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Herein, we report our first results of TEC in HR-SMM. Methods: This is a multiple arm, randomized, phase II, platform study evaluating TEC vs lenalidomide and dexamethasone in HR-SMM. Eligibility criteria included HR-SMM per Mayo 2018 “20-2-20” model, total IMWG risk score of 9 or greater, and other previously established high-risk criteria including PETHEMA criteria, evolving-type SMM, and high-risk FISH abnormalities. This study has an initial, safety run-in cohort of 6 patients treated with TEC. All patients receive 2 step-up doses of subcutaneous TEC. In the safety run-in, patients receive a dose lower than the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of TEC. If no dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) are observed,…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1182/blood-2023-177954

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Three interventional clinical trials with excellent outcomes and MRD negativity were recently investigated using next-generation sequencing.

    “Three different interventional clinical trials reporting excellent results in terms of outcomes and measurable residual disease (MRD) negative status have been recently investigated by using next-generation sequencing.109,110,114,115”

    From Evolution of Multiple Myeloma from a Genomic Perspective (2026) · cites this paper as [114]

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Nadeem, O., Magidson, S., Midha, S., O'Donnell, E. K., Hartley-Brown, M. A., Sperling, A. S., Redd, R. A., Marto, M., Davie, C., Ricciardi, C., Choden, D., Strutevant, A., Alberti, J., Mo, C. C., Laubach, J., Richardson, P. G., Anderson, K. C., Munshi, N. C., Trippa, L., & Ghobrial, I. M.
Affiliations
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
  • 1Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
  • 2DFCI, Boston, MA
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Blood
Published
2023-11-02
Volume
142
Issue
Supplement 1
Pages
206-206
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W4389231688
Cited by
37
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Blood (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Keywords
high-risk smoldering myeloma, bispecific antibodies, teclistamab, BCMA, complete response rate, progression-free survival, minimal residual disease negativity, dose-limiting toxicity, subcutaneous administration, stem cell collection, immunological markers, platform trials

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review