Introduction
The VRd (Velcade—proteasome inhibitor, Revlimid—immunomodulatory agent, dexamethasone—steroid) regimen for multiple myeloma (MM) suppresses malignant plasma cell growth. In the PERSEUS three-phase trial, the addition of daratumumab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, to VRd during induction and consolidation therapy, along with lenalidomide maintenance therapy, conferred a significant benefit with respect to progression-free survival or death at a median follow-up of 47.5 months. Despite this quadruplet approach and consolidation with autologous stem cell transplantation, relapse may still occur even after an initial response [ 1 – 3 ].
Relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is defined by the International Myeloma Working Group [ 3 ] as disease progression within 60 days of the last therapy after at least a minimal response, or resistance to primary or salvage treatment. Triple-class refractory MM involves resistance to a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, whereas penta-refractory disease includes resistance to two agents from each of the first two classes and one anti-CD38 antibody. Although CAR T-cell therapies have shown substantial efficacy in heavily pretreated patients, relapse remains frequent, underscoring the need for new treatments [ 4 , 5 ]. In this context, talquetamab (TAL), a first-in-class bispecific antibody targeting GPRC5D and CD3, has demonstrated significant clinical activity in RRMM and received regulatory approval in 2023 [ 6 , 7 ]. A 2022 phase I [ 6 ] trial demonstrated that TAL was active and tolerable in heavily pretreated MM, establishing the optimal subcutaneous dosing (0.4 mg/kg weekly or 0.8 mg/kg every 2 weeks). The later phase 1–2 study [ 8 ] provided a larger patient population and longer follow-up, showing evidence of durable responses (median time, approximately 11 months) and a consistent overall response rate of around 70% across both subgroups, including those previously exposed to T-cell redirection therapy. However, TAL is consistently associated with a high incidence of on-target, off-tumor oral toxicities, most notably dysgeusia, dry mouth, and dysphagia. The clinical presentation includes disturbances of taste (dysgeusia/ageusia), oral dryness, difficulty swallowing, and secondary weight loss. This study aims to provide a concise literature overview of the oral adverse events observed in patients with MM undergoing TAL therapy and discuss their presentation, severity, and practical strategies for prevention and management.
Methods
A critical search was performed in the MEDLINE/PubMed database. All English-language studies related to oral toxicities associated with TAL were included. The search strategy was based on a combination of the following keywords: (“Talquetamab” OR “GPRC5D”) AND (“oral toxicities” OR “oral side effects” OR “dry mouth” OR “xerostomia” OR “dysgeusia” OR “dysphagia”). Only studies published from 2022 onward were considered (First TAL study- MonumenTAL-1 [ 6 ]).
Results
A total of 25 studies were identified in the literature review. After removal of 11 duplicate studies and 6 review articles reporting data from the MonumenTAL-1 and MonumenTAL-2 trials, 8 studies remained for analysis. These comprised 3 clinical trials [ 6 , 8 , 9 ], 1 prospective study [ 10 ], 1 retrospective study [ 11 ], 1 case series [ 12 ], and 2 case reports [ 13 , 14 ] (Table 1 ). Table 1 Clinical presentation and incidence of oral toxicities related to TAL Study/regimen Dysgeusia/ageusia Xerostomia Dysphagia Time-to-onset Resolution/course Discontinuation due to oral AE MonumenTAL-1 [ 6 ]—0.4 mg/kg weekly 72% of the patients 27% 24% of the patients (0.9% G3/4) Dysg 10–14 day; X ~ 3rd week; Dysph ~ 6 weeks Subset of patients without returns to baseline. Dysg duration= 95 days (median). Dysph duration= 109 days (median). No MonumenTAL-1 [ 6 ]—0.8 mg/kg every other week 71% of the patients 39% 24% of the patients Same temporal pattern Subset of patients without returns to baseline. Dysg duration= 102 days(median). Dysph duration= 73 days (median) < 2% Iida et al. [ 9 ] 66.7% ( n = 10). Grade 1/2 1 patient (6.7%), grade 1/2 20% ( n = 3) grade 1/2 Dysg = median time 13.5 days 4 out 10 patients with dysgeusia recovered No Laheij et al. [ 10 ]—total of 8 patients 6 patients (0.4 mg/kg weekly or 0.8 mg/kg every other week) 2 patients (1600 μg/kg every 4 weeks) All patients; moderate/severe 7 patients—high grade No difference in salivary flow before and after the initiation of TAL Not evaluated Dysg was evaluated after 2 months. Xerostomia = no information Not shown Not emphasized Lery et al. [ 11 ] total of 14 patients—0.8 mg/kg every other week 50% ( n = 7) 71% ( n = 10) No No information No information No information Mansilla-Polo et al. [ 12 ] (0.8 mg/kg every other week) Case series—5 patients 3 patients 3 patients No No information No information No Gross Even-Zohar et al. [ 13 ] (0.8 mg/kg on day 21) 1 patient Grade 2 No No No information Stabilized No Kayahara et al. [ 14 ] (case report) 1 patient No No 3 days after the first escalation dose Yes No TAL talquetamab, AE adverse event, Dysg dysgeusia, X xerostomia, Dysph dysphagia
Table 1
Clinical presentation and incidence of oral toxicities related to TAL
TAL talquetamab, AE adverse event, Dysg dysgeusia, X xerostomia, Dysph dysphagia
| Study/regimen | Dysgeusia/ageusia | Xerostomia | Dysphagia | Time-to-onset | Resolution/course | Discontinuation due to oral AE |
| MonumenTAL-1 [ 6 ]—0.4 mg/kg weekly | 72% of the patients | 27% | 24% of the patients (0.9% G3/4) | Dysg 10–14 day; X ~ 3rd week; Dysph ~ 6 weeks | Subset of patients without returns to baseline. Dysg duration= 95 days (median). Dysph duration= 109 days (median). | No |
| MonumenTAL-1 [ 6 ]—0.8 mg/kg every other week | 71% of the patients | 39% | 24% of the patients | Same temporal pattern | Subset of patients without returns to baseline. Dysg duration= 102 days(median). Dysph duration= 73 days (median) | < 2% |
| Iida et al. [ 9 ] | 66.7% ( n = 10). Grade 1/2 | 1 patient (6.7%), grade 1/2 | 20% ( n = 3) grade 1/2 | Dysg = median time 13.5 days | 4 out 10 patients with dysgeusia recovered | No |
| Laheij et al. [ 10 ]—total of 8 patients 6 patients (0.4 mg/kg weekly or 0.8 mg/kg every other week) 2 patients (1600 μg/kg every 4 weeks) | All patients; moderate/severe | 7 patients—high grade No difference in salivary flow before and after the initiation of TAL | Not evaluated | Dysg was evaluated after 2 months. Xerostomia = no information | Not shown | Not emphasized |
| Lery et al. [ 11 ] total of 14 patients—0.8 mg/kg every other week | 50% ( n = 7) | 71% ( n = 10) | No | No information | No information | No information |
| Mansilla-Polo et al. [ 12 ] (0.8 mg/kg every other week) Case series—5 patients | 3 patients | 3 patients | No | No information | No information | No |
| Gross Even-Zohar et al. [ 13 ] (0.8 mg/kg on day 21) | 1 patient Grade 2 | No | No | No information | Stabilized | No |
| Kayahara et al. [ 14 ] (case report) | 1 patient | No | No | 3 days after the first escalation dose | Yes | No |
Discussion
GPRC5D is an orphan G protein–coupled receptor (GPCR) belonging to family C, group 5 of the metabotropic glutamate receptor–like subfamily. It encodes a seven-transmembrane domain receptor that couples with G proteins to mediate intracellular signaling and is located on chromosome 12p13.3 [ 15 ]. Preclinical evidence demonstrates that GPRC5D exhibits pronounced and relatively restricted expression in malignant plasma cells, suggesting a role in plasma cell–specific signaling pathways and supporting its relevance as a therapeutic target in multiple myeloma [ 16 , 17 ]. Physiologic expression of GPRC5D in normal tissues appears limited and is predominantly associated with hard keratin–producing structures. Inoue et al. [ 17 ] demonstrated expression in the keratogenous zone of the nail matrix and in the central regions of the filiform papillae of the tongue through in situ hybridization in murine tissues. In hair follicles, expression was absent during early anagen but became detectable in cortical cells of the developing hair shaft during mid-to-late anagen, persisting until the catagen phase, indicating a role in keratinization and hair shaft formation. Additional immunohistochemical and in situ hybridization analyses presented at the 18th International Myeloma Workshop [ 18 ] confirmed GPRC5D expression in epithelial cells of hair follicles and at the base of epithelial columns supporting filiform papillae, with variability in RNA signal likely reflecting differences in follicle density across samples. Data from the Human Protein Atlas [ 19 ] further suggest low-level expression in salivary gland tissue, particularly in myoepithelial, ductal, basal, and acinar cells. Collectively, available histologic and transcriptomic evidence indicates that GPRC5D expression in the oral cavity is largely restricted to hard keratinized structures, especially the filiform papillae of the tongue, with limited expression in salivary glands. Biopsies of minor salivary gland showed minimal changes [ 11 ]. This localized distribution might support an on-target mechanism for oral adverse events observed with TAL, including dysgeusia—likely related to filiform papillae involvement—xerostomia, possibly associated with salivary gland effects, and mucosal sensitivity attributable to targeting of keratinized epithelium, while explaining the relative sparing of non-keratinized oral mucosa (Fig. 1 ). Fig. 1 GPRC5D is expressed in the salivary glands and oral tissues, and consequences of the oral toxicities
In the MonumenTAL-1 trial [ 6 ], dysgeusia was reported in 63% and dry mouth in 30% of patients receiving 0.4 mg/kg weekly, whereas both dysgeusia and dry mouth were observed in 57% of patients in the 0.8 mg/kg every-2-weeks cohort. Dysphagia occurred in 37% and 27% of patients in the weekly and every-2-weeks cohorts, respectively. In the continuation of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1–2 study of MonumenTAL-1 [ 8 ], dysgeusia was reported in 72% of patients in the 0.4 mg/kg once-weekly group, and 71% of patients in the 0.8 mg/kg every-2-weeks group, making dysgeusia one of the most frequent adverse events. Dry mouth incidence was approximately 27% in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly group and 39% in the 0.8 mg/kg group, while dysphagia was documented in 24% of patients (grade 3/4 in 0.9%). Symptoms emerged early, with dysgeusia appearing within 10–14 days, dry mouth by the third week, and dysphagia around 6 weeks after treatment initiation. Recovery was often slow, and many patients did not fully return to their baseline. Treatment discontinuation due to these oral toxicities was rare (less than 2% of patients). Across both protocols (0.4 mg/kg vs 0.8 mg/kg), events were mostly of grade 1–2, consistent with a pharmacologic rather than host-level risk signal (Table 1 ).
Laheij et al. [ 10 ] evaluated salivary flow, taste, dry mouth, and quality of life in 8 MM patients before and 8 weeks after initiating TAL. Taste testing demonstrated a significant decline in total taste scores, which was associated with a notable reduction in global health status. Seven of the 8 patients reported severe dry mouth. However, the salivary flow showed no alterations. The Laheij [ 10 ] and Chari [ 6 , 8 ] studies reinforce that these toxicities may represent a mechanism-based class effect mediated by GPRC5D expression in oral epithelial tissues. Taken together, the frequency, persistence, and functional impact of these adverse events support the need for early oral monitoring and timely supportive interventions from the first treatment cycles.
Oncologic patients are at increased risk of malnutrition during treatment, which can lead to sarcopenia, a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength [ 20 ]. This risk is particularly relevant for patients with RRMM, as prior lines of therapy and the disease itself can exacerbate nutritional deficiencies and muscle loss [ 21 ]. Therefore, careful assessment and management of nutritional status are essential during TAL treatment. Oral toxicities such as dysgeusia, dry mouth, and dysphagia may further compromise food intake, contributing to weight loss. Moreover, weight loss and appetite loss are closely interconnected and play a central role in the progression of symptom burden during oncologic therapy. Evidence suggests that weight loss not only arises from decreased appetite but also serves as a predictor of subsequent fatigue, emotional distress, and further appetite decline, establishing a self-perpetuating cycle of nutritional and psychological deterioration. As these symptoms often result from treatment-related side effects, as well as inflammatory, metabolic, and oral complications, early recognition and targeted nutritional, psychological, and oral care interventions are essential to preserving patients’ quality of life and maintaining treatment tolerance [ 20 – 22 ].
A 2024 study [ 22 ] evaluated 17 patients who received at least one dose of TAL for weight loss and dysgeusia. Among them, 14 patients (82%) experienced significant weight loss (median weight loss, 11.6 lbs (6.1% of baseline weight; range 0–30.4 lbs, 0–14.3%), corresponding to a median BMI decrease of 1.76 (range 0–5.56). One patient developed grade IV weight loss according to the BMI-adjusted Weight Loss Grading System (BMI-WLGS). No correlation was observed between treatment duration and severity of weight loss. Two-thirds of patients developed BMI-WLGS grade ≥ II weight loss accompanied by dysgeusia. On average, patients lost 6% of their initial weight during treatment. Following TAL discontinuation, eight patients regained weight, with five returning to or exceeding their baseline levels. The alteration in taste perception has also been associated with a marked decline in overall health status and quality of life (QoL). Oral health–related QoL also worsened significantly, showing an average increase of 7.7 (± 2.6) points across 11 oral symptoms. This reduction was primarily driven by higher scores in “dry mouth,” “altered taste of food and drinks,” “difficulty eating solid food,” and “mouth sensitivity.” Additionally, dietary modifications resulting from taste changes should be closely monitored by the oncology team, as the relationship between dysgeusia, reduced oral QoL, and weight loss has been well established [ 10 ]. A multicenter study evaluating 114 patients showed a mean weight loss of 7.0 kg at 6 months of TAL use, and oral toxicities may be the main contributing factor [ 23 ].
Despite the growing recognition of oral toxicities associated with TAL, evidence-based management strategies remain limited, and no prospective studies have specifically evaluated standardized approaches. The ongoing TALISMAN trial ( NCT06500884 ) [ 24 ], a phase 2 randomized study, is investigating prophylactic interventions for GPRC5D-related oral toxicities, including dexamethasone mouthwash, pregabalin, and clonazepam; however, results are not yet available (until 02–17−2026). Current knowledge is therefore largely derived from clinical trials [ 6 , 8 ], investigator experience [ 25 ], and real-world practice [ 26 ]. Supportive care measures, such as topical corticosteroid or antifungal rinses, zinc or vitamin supplementation, saliva stimulants, hydration, and dietary modifications, have been used to alleviate dysgeusia, although their effectiveness appears variable. Photobiomodulation has shown benefit in isolated cases of TAL-related dysgeusia but requires further validation in controlled studies [ 14 ]. However, dose modification has been the most consistently reported strategy for managing severe dysgeusia [ 25 ]. Management of xerostomia typically includes saliva substitutes, sugar-free gum or lozenges, and sodium lauryl sulfate–free toothpaste [ 25 ], while dysphagia may require oral rinses, analgesics, antifungal therapy, and nutritional support. Prophylactic approaches described in clinical practice include dexamethasone and nystatin mouthwashes, zinc and vitamin B in complex supplementation, and local cooling measures to reduce oral circulation [ 25 ]. Furthermore, multidisciplinary care involving dental or oral medicine specialists, nutritional counseling, and proactive patient education is recommended to improve symptom control and quality of life [ 26 ].
Conversely, although TAL-related oral toxicities have been reported in approximately 70% of patients in the MonumenTAL-1 and MonumenTAL-2 trials [ 6 , 8 ], findings from other GPRC5D-targeted approaches suggest a milder oral safety profile. Both the study by Mailankody et al. [ 27 ] and the phase 1 trial conducted by Jin et al. [ 28 ] evaluating GPRC5D-targeted CAR T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma documented only sporadic and low-grade oral adverse events. In the study by Mailankody et al. [ 27 ], dysgeusia was reported by two patients (12%), while only one patient (6%) experienced xerostomia, with no severe or persistent symptoms described. Similarly, in the study of Jin et al. [ 28 ], none of the 20 treated patients developed oral toxicities. These discrepancies likely stem from differences in drug structure, mechanism of action, dosing schedules, and tissue distribution between bispecific antibodies such as TAL and cellular therapies targeting the same antigen. TAL’s continuous exposure and on-target activity in GPRC5D-expressing keratinized tissues may explain the higher incidence of mucosal and salivary alterations observed in clinical trials, whereas CAR T-cell therapies may result in a more transient or limited interaction with oral tissues. This distinction is clinically relevant for risk stratification, patient counseling, and the development of preventive oral care protocols, while also underscoring the need for standardized reporting criteria and prospective studies to clarify the incidence, mechanisms, and long-term implications of oral adverse events associated with emerging immunotherapies for multiple myeloma.
Conclusion
Talquetamab has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of RRMM, with high response rates and durable clinical outcomes. However, it is frequently associated with dysgeusia, taste loss, and dysphagia, which can significantly impair nutrition and quality of life and ultimately compromise treatment adherence. As these toxicities often emerge early and may persist throughout therapy, effective preventive and management strategies should incorporate early risk assessment, individualized care planning, patient education, and timely interventions to mitigate severity, preserve oral function, and support uninterrupted cancer therapy.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Author contribution
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Fabio Alves and Alessandro Villa and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The Article Processing Charge (APC) for the publication of this research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) (ROR identifier: 00x0ma614).
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
References
1. Mateos MV Weisel K De Stefano V Goldschmidt H Delforge M Mohty M Cavo M Vij R LocoMMotion: a prospective, non-interventional, multinational study of real-life current standards of care in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma Leukemia 2022 36 5 1371 1376 10.1038/s41375-022-01531-2 35332278 PMC9061296 Mateos MV, Weisel K, De Stefano V, Goldschmidt H, Delforge M, Mohty M, Cavo M, Vij R et al (2022) LocoMMotion: a prospective, non-interventional, multinational study of real-life current standards of care in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Leukemia 36(5):1371–1376. 10.1038/s41375-022-01531-2 35332278 10.1038/s41375-022-01531-2 PMC9061296
2. Sonneveld P, Dimopoulos MA, Boccadoro M, Quach H, Ho PJ, Beksac M, PERSEUS Trial Investigators et al (2024) Daratumumab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma. N Engl J Med. 10.1056/NEJMoa2312054 10.1056/NEJMoa2312054 38084760
3. Kumar S Paiva B Anderson KC Durie B Landgren O Moreau P International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol 2016 17 8 e328 e346 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6 27511158 Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P et al (2016) International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 17(8):e328–e346. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6 27511158 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6
4. Khanam R Ashruf OS Waqar SHB Shah Z Batool S Mehreen R The role of bispecific antibodies in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review Antibodies (Basel) 2023 12 2 38 10.3390/antib12020038 37366654 PMC10294881 Khanam R, Ashruf OS, Waqar SHB, Shah Z, Batool S, Mehreen R et al (2023) The role of bispecific antibodies in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review. Antibodies (Basel) (2):38. 10.3390/antib12020038 37366654 10.3390/antib12020038 PMC10294881
5. Labanca C Martino EA Vigna E Bruzzese A Mendicino F Lucia E Talquetamab in multiple myeloma: efficacy, safety, and future directions Eur J Haematol 2025 114 3 386 399 10.1111/ejh.14353 39604778 PMC11798766 Labanca C, Martino EA, Vigna E, Bruzzese A, Mendicino F, Lucia E et al (2025) Talquetamab in multiple myeloma: efficacy, safety, and future directions. Eur J Haematol 114(3):386–399. 10.1111/ejh.14353 39604778 10.1111/ejh.14353 PMC11798766
6. Chari A, Minnema MC, Berdeja JG, Oriol A, van de Donk NWCJ, Rodríguez-Otero P et al (2022) Talquetamab, a T-cell-redirecting GPRC5D bispecific antibody for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 10.1056/NEJMoa2204591 10.1056/NEJMoa2204591 36507686
7. Janssen Biotech, Inc. TALVEY™ (talquetamab-tgvs) prescribing information. https://www.talvey.com . Accessed 5 Mar 2023
8. Chari A Touzeau C Schinke C Minnema MC Berdeja JG Oriol A Safety and activity of talquetamab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MonumenTAL-1): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1-2 study Lancet Haematol 2025 12 4 e269 e281 10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00385-5 40090350 Chari A, Touzeau C, Schinke C, Minnema MC, Berdeja JG, Oriol A et al (2025) Safety and activity of talquetamab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MonumenTAL-1): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1-2 study. Lancet Haematol 12(4):e269–e281. 10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00385-5 40090350 10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00385-5
9. Iida S Sunami K Ito S Yuda J Fujikawa E Takamoto M Phase 1 study of talquetamab, a humanized GPRC5D x CD3 bispecific antibody, in Japanese patients with relapsed/refractory MM Int J Hematol 2025 122 3 421 433 10.1007/s12185-025-03991-5 40343678 PMC12380926 Iida S, Sunami K, Ito S, Yuda J, Fujikawa E, Takamoto M et al (2025) Phase 1 study of talquetamab, a humanized GPRC5D x CD3 bispecific antibody, in Japanese patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Int J Hematol 122(3):421–433. 10.1007/s12185-025-03991-5 40343678 10.1007/s12185-025-03991-5 PMC12380926
10. Laheij AMGA van de Donk NWCJ Characterization of dysgeusia and xerostomia in patients with multiple myeloma treated with the T-cell redirecting GPRC5D bispecific antibody talquetamab Support Care Cancer 2024 32 1 20 10.1007/s00520-023-08233-0 38092979 Laheij AMGA, van de Donk NWCJ (2024) Characterization of dysgeusia and xerostomia in patients with multiple myeloma treated with the T-cell redirecting GPRC5D bispecific antibody talquetamab. Support Care Cancer 32(1):20. 10.1007/s00520-023-08233-0 10.1007/s00520-023-08233-0 38092979
11. Lery M Perrot A Ortiz-Brugués A Vigarios E Anghel D Bories P Sibaud V Dermatological toxicities induced by T-cell-redirecting G protein-coupled receptor family C class 5 member D bispecific antibody talquetamab J Am Acad Dermatol 2024 90 2 376 377 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.08.094 37742842 Lery M, Perrot A, Ortiz-Brugués A, Vigarios E, Anghel D, Bories P, Sibaud V (2024) Dermatological toxicities induced by T-cell-redirecting G protein-coupled receptor family C class 5 member D bispecific antibody talquetamab. J Am Acad Dermatol 90(2):376–377. 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.08.094 37742842 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.08.094
12. Mansilla-Polo M Martín-Torregrosa D Martínez-Cozar V Arnao-Herraiz M Botella-Estrada R Dermatological toxicities of talquetamab, a new bispecific antibody: case series and literature review JDDG J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2024 22 9 1282 1286 10.1111/ddg.15502 39094121 Mansilla-Polo M, Martín-Torregrosa D, Martínez-Cozar V, Arnao-Herraiz M, Botella-Estrada R (2024) Dermatological toxicities of talquetamab, a new bispecific antibody: case series and literature review. JDDG J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 22(9):1282–1286. 10.1111/ddg.15502 39094121 10.1111/ddg.15502
13. Gross Even-Zohar N Aumann S Shaulov A Haran A Nachmias B Lebel E Lehmann-Werman R Gatt ME First case report of talquetamab use in AL amyloidosis Leuk Lymphoma 2025 66 14 2618 2623 10.1080/10428194.2025.2556175 41098045 Gross Even-Zohar N, Aumann S, Shaulov A, Haran A, Nachmias B, Lebel E, Lehmann-Werman R, Gatt ME (2025) First case report of talquetamab use in AL amyloidosis. Leuk Lymphoma 66(14):2618–2623. 10.1080/10428194.2025.2556175 41098045 10.1080/10428194.2025.2556175
14. Kayahara GM, Espinhosa RB, da Silva SN, Pereira MAS, Bernabé DG, Miyahara GI et al (2025) Talquetamab-induced dysgeusia successfully treated with photobiomodulation therapy. Laryngoscope. 10.1002/lary.32445 10.1002/lary.32445 40673647
15. Bräuner-Osborne H Jensen AA Sheppard PO Brodin B Krogsgaard-Larsen P O'Hara P Cloning and characterization of a human orphan family C G-protein coupled receptor GPRC5D Biochim Biophys Acta 2001 1518 3 237 48 10.1016/s0167-4781(01)00197-x 11311935 Bräuner-Osborne H, Jensen AA, Sheppard PO, Brodin B, Krogsgaard-Larsen P, O’Hara P (2001) Cloning and characterization of a human orphan family C G-protein coupled receptor GPRC5D. Biochim Biophys Acta 1518(3):237–48. 10.1016/s0167-4781(01)00197-x 11311935 10.1016/s0167-4781(01)00197-x
16. Verkleij CPM Broekmans MEC van Duin M Frerichs KA Kuiper R de Jonge AV Preclinical activity and determinants of response of the GPRC5DxCD3 bispecific antibody talquetamab in multiple myeloma Blood Adv 2021 5 8 2196 2215 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003805 33890981 PMC8095149 Verkleij CPM, Broekmans MEC, van Duin M, Frerichs KA, Kuiper R, de Jonge AV et al (2021) Preclinical activity and determinants of response of the GPRC5DxCD3 bispecific antibody talquetamab in multiple myeloma. Blood Adv 5(8):2196–2215. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003805 33890981 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003805 PMC8095149
17. Inoue S Nambu T Shimomura T The RAIG family member, GPRC5D, is associated with hard-keratinized structures J Invest Dermatol 2004 122 3 565 73 10.1046/j.0022-202X.2004.12628.x 15086536 Inoue S, Nambu T, Shimomura T (2004) The RAIG family member, GPRC5D, is associated with hard-keratinized structures. J Invest Dermatol 122(3):565–73. 10.1046/j.0022-202X.2004.12628.x 15086536 10.1046/j.0022-202X.2004.12628.x
18. Rachel Goldsmith IC Jing Ying Ma XY Ping Peng VC P-095: normal human tissue expression of G-protein coupled receptor 5D (GPRC5D), a promising novel target for multiple myeloma, is restricted to plasma cells and hard keratinized tissues Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2021 21 2 S91 10.1016/S2152-2650(21)02229-1 Rachel Goldsmith IC, Jing Ying Ma XY, Ping Peng VC (2021) P-095: normal human tissue expression of G-protein coupled receptor 5D (GPRC5D), a promising novel target for multiple myeloma, is restricted to plasma cells and hard keratinized tissues. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 21(2):S91. 10.1016/S2152-2650(21)02229-1
19. The Human Protein Atlas- https://www.proteinatlas.org Accessed Feb 17, 2026
20. Pellegrini M Merlo FD Agnello E Monge T Devecchi A Casalone V Dysgeusia in patients with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy-a narrative review Nutrients 2023 15 1 226 10.3390/nu15010226 36615883 PMC9823517 Pellegrini M, Merlo FD, Agnello E, Monge T, Devecchi A, Casalone V et al (2023) Dysgeusia in patients with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy-a narrative review. Nutrients 15(1):226. 10.3390/nu15010226 36615883 10.3390/nu15010226 PMC9823517
21. Du H Jiao Q Liu C Wu X Guo J Zheng H Dynamic changes in symptom clusters and symptom networks in patients with multiple myeloma: a cross-lagged network analysis Cancer Nurs 2025 10.1097/NCC.0000000000001537 40952868 Du H, Jiao Q, Liu C, Wu X, Guo J, Zheng H et al (2025Sep 22) Dynamic changes in symptom clusters and symptom networks in patients with multiple myeloma: a cross-lagged network analysis. Cancer Nurs. 10.1097/NCC.0000000000001537 40952868 10.1097/NCC.0000000000001537
22. Naqvi S, Shrestha A, Alzubi M, Alrawabdeh J, Thanendrarajan S, Zangari M et al (2024Jul 3) Weight loss and dysgeusia in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients treated with talquetamab. EJHaem 5(4):789–792. 10.1002/jha2.971.Erratum.In:EJHaem.2025May19;6(3):e70052.doi:10.1002/jha2.70052 10.1002/jha2.971 PMC11327703 39157593
23. Al Hadidi S Szabo A Mohan Lal B Bag A Zhen S Ogunsesan Y Talquetamab in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma: multi-institutional real-world study Blood Cancer J 2025 15 7 196 10.1038/s41408-025-01386-7 41203605 PMC12594773 Al Hadidi S, Szabo A, Mohan Lal B, Bag A, Zhen S, Ogunsesan Y et al (2025) Talquetamab in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma: multi-institutional real-world study. Blood Cancer J 15(7):196. 10.1038/s41408-025-01386-7 41203605 10.1038/s41408-025-01386-7 PMC12594773
24. Popat R, Laheij A, van de Donk NW, Doty RL, Omel J, Lipe B, Rasche L et al (2025) Prophylactic interventions for oral toxicities with the GPRC5D×CD3 bispecific antibody talquetamab in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: an update on the open-label, phase 2, randomized TALISMAN study. ( NCT06500884 ). J Clin Oncol 43, TPS7565. 10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.TPS7565
25. Chari A Krishnan A Rasche L Ye JC Garfall A Popat R Clinical management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with talquetamab Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2024 24 10 665 693.e14 10.1016/j.clml.2024.05.003 38871558 Chari A, Krishnan A, Rasche L, Ye JC, Garfall A, Popat R et al (2024) Clinical management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with talquetamab. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 24(10):665-693.e14. 10.1016/j.clml.2024.05.003 38871558 10.1016/j.clml.2024.05.003
26. Schinke C Dhakal B Mazzoni S Shenoy S Scott SA Richards T Real-world experience with clinical management of talquetamab in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a qualitative study of US healthcare providers Curr Med Res Opin 2024 40 10 1705 1711 10.1080/03007995.2024.2387183 39177290 Schinke C, Dhakal B, Mazzoni S, Shenoy S, Scott SA, Richards T et al (2024) Real-world experience with clinical management of talquetamab in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a qualitative study of US healthcare providers. Curr Med Res Opin 40(10):1705–1711. 10.1080/03007995.2024.2387183 39177290 10.1080/03007995.2024.2387183
27. Mailankody S Devlin SM Landa J Nath K Diamonte C Carstens EJ GPRC5D-Targeted CAR T cells for myeloma N Engl J Med 2022 387 29 1196 1206 10.1056/NEJMoa2209900 36170501 PMC10309537 Mailankody S, Devlin SM, Landa J, Nath K, Diamonte C, Carstens EJ et al (2022) GPRC5D-Targeted CAR T cells for myeloma. N Engl J Med 387(29):1196–1206. 10.1056/NEJMoa2209900 36170501 10.1056/NEJMoa2209900 PMC10309537
28. Jin L Gu S Ruan Q Lu J Qiang W He H GPRC5D-targeted CAR T-cell therapy (CT071) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a first-in-human, single-centre, single-arm, phase 1 trial Lancet Haematol 2025 12 10 e798 e807 10.1016/S2352-3026(25)00176-0 41062204 Jin L, Gu S, Ruan Q, Lu J, Qiang W, He H et al (2025) GPRC5D-targeted CAR T-cell therapy (CT071) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a first-in-human, single-centre, single-arm, phase 1 trial. Lancet Haematol 12(10):e798–e807. 10.1016/S2352-3026(25)00176-0 41062204 10.1016/S2352-3026(25)00176-0