Introduction
Talquetamab is a GPRC5D bispecific antibody approved for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after 4 prior lines of therapy. In the MonumenTAL‐1 study, subcutaneous talquetamab achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 74% with 0.4 mg/kg weekly dosing and 69% with 0.8 mg/kg every‐2‐weeks dosing in T‐cell–redirection–naive patients, while among patients previously treated with T‐cell–redirecting therapies ( n = 78), the ORR was 67%, with a median progression‐free survival of 7.7 months [ 1 ]. Talquetamab adverse events (AEs) include cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell‐associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and infection [ 2 , 3 ]. Its on‐target, off‐tumor toxicities reflect physiologic expression of GPRC5D in keratinized epithelial structures, including the skin, nails, oral mucosa, and taste buds. Clinically, these toxicities manifest commonly as skin and nail changes, dysgeusia, and oral toxicities, which are frequent and cumulative [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Clinical trial populations are subject to strict eligibility criteria that may limit generalizability, especially with respect to comorbidity burden, renal dysfunction, performance status, and prior exposure to BCMA‐directed therapies [ 7 ]. Real‐world data are therefore essential to characterize the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of talquetamab across broader patient populations, and to inform optimal supportive care and treatment strategies outside of the clinical trial setting.
To address these gaps, we conducted a large, global real‐world analysis of patients with RRMM (Appendix A ) treated with talquetamab across multiple centers between November 2022 and July 2025. The objectives of this study were to characterize real‐world patterns of talquetamab use, evaluate safety and tolerability, and assess real‐world outcomes, including response rates, progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).
Methods
This is an international multicenter retrospective study of patients with RRMM treated with talquetamab administered as standard of care or compassionate use at nine academic centers from five countries (United States, United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and Canada) and conducted within an International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) Immunotherapy Database Protocol by members of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Immunotherapy Committee. Patients initiated talquetamab between May 2022 and April 2025. Data underwent peer‐based quality checks for completeness and internal consistencies. Cytogenetic information was obtained from samples taken at any timepoint since diagnosis. High‐risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as the presence of one or more of the following abnormalities: 1q+, t (4;14), t (14;16), t (14;20), and del(17p).
Patients were included if they received at least 1 cycle of talquetamab. Talquetamab dosing, schedule modifications, and dose adjustments were according to individual institutional standards based on response and the incidence and severity of AEs. Supportive care measures including treatment of CRS, ICANS, and use of antimicrobial prophylaxis were also per institutional guidelines at the discretion of the treating physician. Patients who received talquetamab as part of bridging for CART therapy were not analyzed for survival outcomes including PFS and OS since this was not a definitive therapy.
Responses were assessed using published IMWG response criteria as determined by the individual investigators. Patient charts were reviewed to assess baseline characteristics, treatment characteristics, and specific AEs, including infection, cytopenia, CRS, and ICANS. CRS and ICANS were graded according to the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy criteria. All other AEs were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses with pre‐specified variables known to be clinically significant including penta‐refractory disease, prior BCMA status and exposure, ALC < 0.4 × 10 9 /L, and platelets less than 50 × 10 9 /L were conducted to assess the association between PFS and OS in the cohort.
Results
Patient Characteristics
A total of 151 patients treated with talquetamab between November 2022 and July 2025 were included (Table 1 ). The median age was 64 years (range 35–86); 54% were male. 81% were Caucasian, with a 9% African American population. Patients were heavily pretreated, with a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, 91% were triple‐refractory (91%), 53% were penta refractory and 75% had received prior BCMA therapy. High‐risk cytogenetics was present in 42%, with baseline ECOG performance status ≥ 2 in 21%, and 12% had a creatinine clearance of less than 30. Overall, 55% would not have been eligible for the MonumenTAL‐1 per investigator assessment.
TABLE 1
Patient characteristics.
Abbreviations: BCMA, B‐cell maturation antigen; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
| Characteristic | Overall ( N = 151) |
| Age, years | 64 (35–86) |
| Sex, n (%) | |
| Male | 82 (54.3) |
| Female | 69 (45.7) |
| Race, n (%) | |
| White | 118 (81.4) |
| African American/Black | 13 (9.0) |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 11 (7.6) |
| American Indian/Alaska Native | 1 (0.7) |
| Other | 2 (1.4) |
| High‐risk cytogenetics, n (%) | |
| Yes | 43 (41.7) |
| No | 60 (58.3) |
| Missing | 48 |
| ECOG performance status, n (%) | |
| 0–1 | 85 (79.4) |
| ≥ 2 | 22 (20.6) |
| Missing | 44 |
| Prior lines of therapy, median (range) | 6 (1–20) |
| Refractory status, n (%) | |
| Triple‐refractory | 137 (91.3) |
| Penta‐refractory | 79 (53.0) |
| Prior BCMA‐directed therapy, n (%) | |
| Yes | 113 (74.8) |
| No | 38 (25.2) |
| Eligibility for MonumenTAL‐1, n (%) | |
| Eligible | 59 (45.4) |
| Not eligible | 71 (54.6) |
| Missing | 21 |
| Creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min, n (%) | 17 (11.7) |
CRS and ICANS
After the first step‐up dose (SUD) SUD1 (Table 2 ), CRS occurred in n = 39 (26%), mostly low grade (97%) and 1 Grade 3 event (3%)0.18 patients (46%) were treated with tocilizumab (16 received one dose; 2 received two doses) and 12 (31%) were treated with corticosteroids‐ (8 received 1 dose, 2 received 2 doses, and 2 received 3 doses). After SUD2, CRS occurred in 45 patients (30%), with all episodes low grade; Grade 1: n = 38 (84%) and Grade 2: n = 7 (16%). After SUD 3, 30/129 patients (23%) developed CRS with all being low grade; Grade 1 n = 27 (90%) and Grade 2 n = 3 (10%). After completion of SUD, only 15 patients (12%) experienced CRS during full dose talquetamab with all being low grade CRS Grade 1 n = 14 (93%) except for one Grade 3: 1 (7%) event. (Table 2 ) Recurrent CRS was observed in 17% of patients.
TABLE 2
Incidence of CRS across step‐up doses (SUD) and first full dose.
Abbreviations: CRS, cytokine release syndrome; SUD, step‐up dose.
| Step‐up dose | CRS incidence | Grades 1–2 | Grade ≥ 3 | Tocilizumab use | Steroid use |
| SUD1 | 26% | 97% | 3% | 46% | 31% |
| SUD2 | 30% | 84% | 0% | 18% | 11% |
| SUD3 | 23% | 100% | 0% | 12% | 13% |
| Full dose | 12% | 93% | 7% | 6% | 2% |
ICANS was infrequent with only 12 patients (8.1%) developing ICANS during treatment. In these 12 patients, events were generally low‐grade; Grade 1 n = 8 (67%), Grade 2 n = 3 (25%), with only a single Grade 3 event n = 1 (8.3%). ICANS onset occurred early, in the first week following step‐up dosing, with onset between Day 1 to Day 9. Recurrent ICANS was not observed in this cohort.
Skin and Nail Toxicity
Cutaneous AEs were common and occurred in 40% of patients with talquetamab (Table 3 ). The most frequently reported manifestations were skin dryness (39%), rash (21%), pruritus (11%), and skin peeling (7%), and combinations of these toxicities occurred. Most skin toxicities were mild to moderate, with Grade 1 events accounting for 67% and Grade 2 events for 30%. Management was primarily supportive, whereas topical corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids were used in 25% and 4%, respectively; and most evaluable patients (58%) required no specific treatment for skin toxicity. Importantly, dose interruptions due to skin toxicity were infrequent (10%).
TABLE 3
Cutaneous and oral toxicities of talquetamab.
Note: All percentages for common manifestations are of total patients ( N = 151). Grade ≥ 3 percentages are of patients with the respective toxicity.
| Toxicity category | Present yes/no n (%) | Common manifestations ( n , %) | Grade ≥ 3 n (%) | Treatment required n (%) | Dose interruption n (%) |
| Skin toxicity | 60 (39.7%) | Dryness: 59 (39.1%); Rash: 32 (21.2%); Pruritus: 16 (10.6%); Peeling: 10 (6.6%) | 3 (4.0%) | Any treatment: 45 (42.5%); Topical steroids: 26 (24.5); Systemic steroids: 4 (3.8) | 7 (9.6%) |
| Nail toxicity | 114 (75.5%) | Discoloration: 10 (6.6%); Fissuring 13 (8.6%); Brittleness: 5 (3.3%); Ridging: 4 (2.6%) | 1 (0.7%) | Any treatment: 13 (9.6%); Topical/systemic steroids: 5 (3.7%) | N/A |
| Dysgeusia | 90 (60.4%) | Taste alteration | 1 (1.1%) | Any treatment: 24 (21.5%); Mostly supportive | 9 (6.9%) |
| Oral toxicities | 95 (62.9%) | Dry mouth: 46, (30.5%); Stomatitis: 14 (9.3%); Ulcerations 2 (1.3%) | 2 (4.0%) | Any treatment: 18 (17.9%); Topical steroids: 7 (5.7%); Systemic steroids: 2 (1.6%) | 6 (4.0%) |
Nail‐related toxicities were frequently observed and 75.5% of patients experienced nail toxicity. Among evaluable patients, 74% experienced Grade 1 with 22% Grade 2, with Grade 3 toxicity occurring in only one patient (4%). Most patients (90%) required no specific treatment, while 3% received topical steroids and 0.7% received systemic steroids.
Dysgeusia and Oral Toxicities
Dysgeusia was a frequent on‐target AE, occurring in 60% of patients (Table 3 ). Most events were low‐grade, with Grade 1 dysgeusia in 64% and Grade 2 in 35% of patients; only one Grade 3 event (1%) was reported. In 78% of patients, no specific interventions were reported; however, dose interruptions related to dysgeusia were 7%.
Oral toxicities were also frequent, noted in 63% of patients. The most common manifestations being dry mouth (30.5%) and stomatitis (9%), while glossitis and oral ulcerations were rare (< 2%). Oral toxicities were primarily Grade 1 (73%) or Grade 2 (23%), with Grade 3 events occurring in 4%. Dose interruptions due to oral toxicity were low at 4%.
Infection
Among the 151 patients, 77 (51.0%) had one or more episodes of documented infection, whereas 1 infection occurred in 37 patients (48.1%), 2 infections in 26 patients (33.8%), and 3 or more infections in 14 patients (18.2%). The most frequently reported infections were URI (32.1%), other infections—unclassified (26.9%), lung infection (12.4%), viral reactivation (12.4%), bacteremia (10.2%), and UTI (5.8%) (Figure 1 ).
![FIGURE 1 Infections in patients undergoing talquetamab ( n = 137 events). [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com ]](/library/976056/assets/16885c86b8bffae23fb83bdd0433bc4a357ac6e8e7d9b27f566527dfcc3a9c03.jpg/)
Among patients with infection ( n = 77), 37 (48%) had severe infection and required hospitalization, 33 (43%) did not require hospitalization, and 7 (9.1%) had unknown hospitalization status. Grading of infection was inconsistently reported, but those requiring hospitalization were classified as > Grade 2. Among these 37 patients requiring hospitalization, 22 (59%) had one hospitalization episode, 14 (38%) had two episodes, and 2 (5%) had three or more episodes. A total of 135 infection episodes were recorded over 1157.7 person‐months of follow‐up. The incidence rate was 11.7 per 100 person‐months. Similarly, a total of 57 infection‐related hospitalizations were recorded among 145 patients over 1121 person‐months of follow‐up. The incidence rate was 5 per 100 person‐months.
CMV reactivation occurred in 11%, although no CMV end‐organ disease was reported. Neutropenia was common during therapy. Grade 3–4 cytopenia included neutropenia in 36% and thrombocytopenia in 32%.
Follow‐Up and Treatment Exposure
The majority of patients initiated treatment on an every 2 week dosing schedule (87.6%). Subsequent treatment modifications occurred in 20% ( n = 10) of patients, typically after several cycles of therapy, with the most frequent reasons being favorable response (38%) and treatment‐related toxicity (21%). When dosing intervals were modified, patients commonly transitioned to every‐4‐week dosing (66%) with less frequent adjustments to every‐2‐ (24%), every‐3 (3%), or every‐6‐week (7%) schedules.
At the time of last follow‐up, 32 patients (21.2%) remained on talquetamab, while 119 patients (78.8%) had discontinued therapy. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was progressive disease (38.4%), followed by toxicity (6.6%), death (6.0%), planned completion of therapy (6.0%), and patient or physician preference (5.3%), while discontinuation reasons were unknown in 14.6%.
Response and Survival Outcomes
Response and survival outcomes were assessed in 143 patients and patients who underwent talquetamab bridging ( n = 8) were excluded from the efficacy analysis. The ORR (≥ PR) was 67.6%, including stringent complete response (sCR) in 5.1%, complete response (CR) in 14.7%, very good partial response (VGPR) in 33.1%, and partial response (PR) in 14.7% of patients. Stable disease was observed in 15.4%, while progressive disease as best response occurred in 16.9%.
With a median follow‐up of 12.7 months, the median PFS is 7 months (95% CI, 5.8–8.8) and was 7.6 months in patients with prior BCMA exposure (Figure 2 ). The estimated PFS rate at 6, 12, and 18 months is 57%, 32%, and 24% respectively (Figure 2 ). Median OS was not reached (Figure 3 ), with survival probabilities of 81% at 6 months, 65% at 12 months, and 58% at 18 months.
![FIGURE 2 Progression free survival. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com ]](/library/976056/assets/9705c1b1be1bb5b7199303f098ab2ed7eea2a1ec4d2050b7b40fde4eeb4806fe.jpg/)
![FIGURE 3 Overall survival. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com ]](/library/976056/assets/0cdc3a02bea9ad19af0a2fa1788e91c7f168bdc27fa06a4036b2155a502b457c.jpg/)
Time to Event Analysis
Kaplan–Meier analyses of PFS were done by prespecified subgroups In univariate Cox regression analyses, platelet count < 50 × 10 9 /L was associated with inferior PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.78, 95% CI 1.14–2.75; p = 0.010), whereas penta‐refractory status (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.65–1.47; p > 0.9), prior BCMA exposure (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.42–1.12; p = 0.13), and ALC < 0.4 × 10 9 /L (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71–1.83; p = 0.6) were not statistically significant (Table S1 ). In multivariate Cox regression, platelet count < 50 × 10 9 /L remained independently associated with PFS (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.15–2.83; p = 0.01), while penta‐refractory status, prior BCMA therapy, and ALC at treatment initiation were not significantly associated with PFS after adjustment (Table S2 ).
Discussion
In this large real‐world cohort, we describe 151 patients treated with talquetamab across nine international academic centers with a median follow‐up of 12.7 months. This is longer follow‐up than most real‐world analyses and allows for a more robust and accurate assessment of toxicity and outcomes assessments. This also allows for a better comparison to registration trials. In this study, comparing baseline characteristics to MonumenTAL‐1, the median age was 64 versus 67 years, patients received 6 prior LOT versus 4.5 LOT and ECOG PS was 2 in 21% versus 4%–9%. In this study, 55% would not have met eligibility criteria for MonumenTAL‐1 per investigator criteria. Prior BCMA‐directed therapy in MonumenTAL‐1 was limited to the prior TCR cohort, compared with 75% prior BCMA exposure in this real‐world cohort. Taken together, our cohort includes a less‐fit and more refractory population than MonumenTAL‐1. Despite this, CRS and ICANS were comparable to MonumenTAL‐1, except for a single case of Grade 3 ICANS which later resolved without sequelae [ 1 ].
The on‐target, off‐tumor toxicities were generally comparable, albeit skin toxicities were slightly less common while other toxicities including oral toxicity, dysgeusia, and nail changes were similar, with a slightly higher incidence of Grade 3 oral toxicities (Table 4 ). In MonumenTAL‐1, infections of any grade were reported in approximately 59%–63% of patients treated with talquetamab, with grade ≥ 3 infections occurring in 22%–26% of patients [ 1 ]. In the real‐world cohort, 51.0% experienced at least one infection, with a total of 135 infection episodes over a follow‐up of 100 person‐months. It is difficult to have grading of each infection in a real‐world cohort, but infection‐related hospitalizations were recorded and occurred in 36/151 (24%) of patients, which were assessed as severe infection. This rate of hospitalization was slightly higher when compared to MonumenTAL‐1. Opportunistic infections were rare, and no patient had organ‐related CMV disease. Granular data on IVIG replacement was not available, but immunoglobulin replacement has become part of standard prophylaxis as well as therapy for VZV reactivation and PJP [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. No infection‐related deaths in the RWE cohort were reported.
TABLE 4
Comparison of adverse events between MonumenTAL‐1 and IMWG real‐world evidence cohort.
Abbreviations: CRS, cytokine release syndrome; ICANS, immune effector cell‐associated neurotoxicity syndrome; IMWG, International Myeloma Working Group; RWE, real‐world evidence.
| Toxicity category | MonumenTAL‐1 (any grade %) | MonumenTAL‐1 (Grade ≥ 3%) | Real‐world cohort (any grade n , %) | Real‐world cohort (Grade ≥ 3 n , %) |
| CRS | 75%–80% | < 5% | Not reported | Rare (single event) |
| ICANS | 4%–11% | 0% | 12 (8.1%) | 1 (0.7%) |
| Skin toxicity | 56%–68% | 3%–4% | 60 (39.7%) | 3 (4.0%) |
| Nail toxicity | 57%–68% | < 1% | 114 (75.5%) | 1 (0.7%) |
| Dysgeusia | 70% | < 1% | 90 (60.4%) | 1 (1.1%) |
| Oral toxicities | ~60% | ≤ 2% | 95 (62.9%) | 2 (4.0%) |
The on‐target, off‐tumor toxicity with GPRC5D therapies has been commonly reported. Oral toxicity including stomatitis and dysgeusia has been most troublesome for patients and has been associated with significant quality‐of‐life impact and frequent weight loss. Management of these toxicities is supportive, with dose reductions and schedule changes being most effective [ 11 ]. In this RWE cohort, 27.2% had dosing‐interval changes, most commonly every 4 weeks, and the reason for the change was a good response. Importantly, very few patients discontinued talquetamab due to AEs (6.6%).
In MonumenTAL‐1, the ORR was 74% in the 0.8 mg/kg every‐2‐week cohort, with ≥ VGPR achieved in 55%–60% and CR/sCR in approximately 20%–25% of patients [ 1 ]. This closely aligns with our real‐world analysis showing an ORR of 64%, ≥ VGPR of 49%, and CR/sCR of 19%. One main limitation of real‐world analyses is the infrequent use of bone marrow biopsy assessments to confirm CR, resulting in inherent under‐reporting [ 12 ].
Among patients without prior T‐cell redirection therapy in MonumenTAL‐1, the median PFS was 7.5 months in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly cohort and 11.2 months in the 0.8 mg/kg every‐2‐week cohort [ 1 ]. In contrast, patients with prior T‐cell redirection therapy demonstrated a shorter median PFS of 5.1 months, whereas the median PFS in this real‐world cohort was 7.6 months. Median OS was not reached in MonumenTAL‐1 at reported follow‐up, and similarly was not reached in the real‐world cohort.
There have been two published reports describing real‐world evidence (RWE) for talquetamab, one by Frenking et al. [ 13 ] and another by Hadidi et al. [ 14 ] (Table 5 ). All real‐world analyses included heavily pretreated patients with a similar median LOT of 6; a high proportion of patients receiving prior BCMA‐directed therapy (51% in the German multicenter cohort, 65% in the Hadidi cohort, and 75% in our cohort); and similar ORRs (65%, 73%, and 64%, respectively). Median follow‐up was shorter in the German and US cohorts (7.8 and 6.7 months), but median PFS was comparable (6.7, 10.0, and 7.1 months, respectively) [ 13 , 14 ]. Median OS was not reached in any of the three cohorts; our cohort demonstrated a 24‐month OS of 54%. Outcomes across the cohorts are consistent, supporting generalizability.
TABLE 5
Comparison of outcomes between the 3 real‐world evidence (RWE) cohorts.
Note: All cohorts received talquetamab in the real‐world setting. Median follow‐up calculated from time of first talquetamab dose. Abbreviations: BCMA, B‐cell maturation antigen; CI, confidence interval; NR, not reached; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression‐free survival; RWE, real‐world evidence.
| Cohort | N | Prior BCMA exposure | Median prior lines (range) | Median follow‐up | ORR | Median PFS | Median OS |
| Frenking et al. | 138 | 51% | 6 (2–15) | 7.8 months | 65% | 6.7 months (95% CI 5.6–7.8) | Not reached |
| Hadidi et al. RWE | 114 | 65% | 6 (2–15) | 6.7 months | 73% | 10.0 months (95% CI 5.4–NR) | Not reached |
| Our RWE cohort | 151 | 75% | 6 (1–20) | 12.7 months | 64% | 7 months (95% CI 5.8–8.8) | Not reached (24‐months OS 54%) |
Limitations include the retrospective design, absence of centralized response assessment, incomplete characterization of BCMA exposure history, non‐standardized toxicity grading, and lack of data on IVIG, vaccination, weight loss, and ataxia.
Conclusions
In this largest, global real‐world cohort, talquetamab demonstrated clinical efficacy comparable to MonumenTAL‐1. Oral, nail, and taste‐related toxicities remain prominent and underscore the need for improved supportive care strategies as talquetamab moves into earlier lines of therapy. Importantly, despite a heavily pretreated population, high rates of prior BCMA‐directed therapy, and substantial comorbidity burden, response rates, PFS, and OS were maintained, supporting the effectiveness of talquetamab across broader real‐world populations.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to intellectual conceptualization and data of the project, analysis of the data and interpretation of the analyses, and revision of the manuscript. M.J. drafted the manuscript.
Funding
The authors have nothing to report.
Ethics Statement
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of every participating institution.
Conflicts of Interest
Murali Janakiram reports research funding from Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, Legend, and FATE Therapeutics, and advisory board participation with Johnson & Johnson and Bristol Myers Squibb. Carlyn Tan reports research funding from Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda, and consultancy with Janssen and Sanofi. Hira Mian reports consulting and advisory relationships with Pfizer, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Regeneron, and Roche; Pfizer has also provided research funding to her institution. Chiung‐Yu Huang reports consultancy with Janssen Global Services LLC. Rakesh Popat reports honoraria from Johnson & Johnson, GSK, and Pfizer; consultancy with Roche, Johnson & Johnson, GSK, Regeneron, Pfizer, and Amgen; research funding from Pfizer and GSK; and travel support from GSK and Johnson & Johnson. Joaquín Martínez‐López reports providing scientific advice to Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, GSK, Astellas, Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, and Menarini; participation in medical meetings organized by Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Sanofi, Pfizer, and Amgen; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Pfizer, and Roche; payments for presentations and advisory services from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, GSK, Astellas, Sanofi, Karyopharm, Novartis, and Gilead; and board membership and shares in Altum Sequencing, Stab Therapeutics, and Cancerhappy. Efstathios Kastritis reports research support from Janssen, GSK, and Pfizer; advisory board participation with Janssen, GSK, and Menarini; and travel support from Genesis Pharma and Janssen. Wee‐Joo Chng reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and AbbVie, and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, and GSK. Prashant Kapoor reports no conflicts of interest. Mrugakshi Dave reports no conflicts of interest. Susan Bal reports honoraria from the Amyloid Foundation; consultancy with Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Pfizer, and Kite/Arcellx; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, BeiGene, and Fate Therapeutics; and other relationships with Adaptive Biotechnology. Laurent Garderet reports advisory board participation with Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Sanofi, and GSK. Andre de Menezes Silva Corraes reports no conflicts of interest. Christine Riedhammer reports consultancy with Johnson & Johnson and Takeda. Torsten Steinbrunn received travel support for conventions from Janssen. Magdalena Corona reports no conflicts of interest; her work is supported by a Transforma12 fellowship from the Fundación de Investigación Hospital 12 de Octubre. Chandramouli Nagarajan reports advisory roles (to institution) with Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, GSK, Pfizer, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and DKSH, and research funding to his institution from Janssen and Amgen. Hermann Einsele reports consulting or advisory roles with Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis, and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, GSK, and Sanofi. Thomas Martin reports research funding to his institution from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Poseida, and consulting for GSK and Pfizer. Amrita Krishnan reports consultancy with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Roche, AbbVie, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, and stock ownership in Bristol Myers Squibb. Yi Lin reports advisory board participation with Janssen, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Genentech, Tessera, and Legend; steering committee participation with Janssen and Kite/Gilead; scientific advisory board participation with NexImmune and Caribou; data safety monitoring board participation with Pfizer; and research funding to her institution from Janssen and Bristol Myers Squibb.
Supporting information
Table S1: Univariate Cox Proportional Hazards Regression for Progression‐Free Survival.
Table S2: Multivariate Cox Proportional Hazards Regression for Progression‐Free Survival.
Acknowledgments
This manuscript was developed as an activity of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Immunotherapy Registry. The authors thank the International Myeloma Foundation and the IMWG for their support.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
1 A. Chari , C. Rodriguez , H. McCarthy , et al., “ Talquetamab, a GPRC5D×CD3 Bispecific Antibody, in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MonumenTAL‐1) ,” New England Journal of Medicine 389 ( 2023 ): 1840 – 1854 .
2 M. Lee , M. P. Watkins , et al., “ CRS and ICANS With Next‐Generation T‐Cell–Redirecting Therapies ,” Blood 141 , no. 12 ( 2023 ): 1432 – 1445 .
3 S. Al Hadidi , et al., “ Infection Risk and Management With GPRC5D‐ and BCMA‐Targeted Bispecifics ,” Blood Advances 8 , no. 16 ( 2024 ): 4501 – 4515 .
4 E. L. Smith , P. Harrington , et al., “ GPRC5D Expression in Normal Tissues and Implications for GPRC5D‐Targeted Therapy ,” Blood 140 , no. 5 ( 2022 ): 445 – 459 .35588468
5 A. Chari , A. Krishnan , L. Rasche , et al., “ Clinical Management of Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Treated With Talquetamab ,” Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia 24 , no. 10 ( 2024 ): 665 – 693.e14 , 10.1016/j.clml.2024.05.003 . 38871558
6 A. Chari , S. Shenoy , S. Kruyswijk , B. Hilder , L. O'Rourke , and N. W. C. J. van de Donk , “ Managing Side Effects of Talquetamab for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Monumen TAL‐1: A Plain Language Summary ,” Future Oncology 21 , no. 23 ( 2025 ): 2969 – 2984 , 10.1080/14796694.2025.2555170 . 40951933 PMC12490392
7 S. Z. Usmani , A. Hoering , et al., “ Eligibility of Real‐World RRMM Patients for Clinical Trials ,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 38 ( 2020 ): 2344 – 2350 .
8 J. A. Hill and S. K. Seo , “ Preventing Infections in Patients Receiving Bispecific Antibodies and CAR‐T Cells ,” Blood 142 , no. 3 ( 2023 ): 255 – 266 .
9 K. Mancuso , M. Talarico , E. Manzato , et al., “ T‐Cell Redirecting Therapies in Multiple Myeloma: Pathogenesis and Management of Toxicities Beyond CRS and ICANS ,” Cancers (Basel) 17 , no. 9 ( 2025 ): 1514 , 10.3390/cancers17091514 . 40361441 PMC12070925
10 F. Mazahreh , L. Mazahreh , C. Schinke , et al., “ Risk of Infections Associated With the Use of Bispecific Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: A Pooled Analysis ,” Blood Advances 7 , no. 13 ( 2023 ): 3069 – 3074 , 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022009435 . 36857755 PMC10331406
11 A. Chari , et al., Supportive Care and Dose Modification Strategies for Talquetamab ( ASH , 2025 ).
12 T. Xu , J. Roose , M. Williamson , et al., “ RWD‐Derived Response in Multiple Myeloma ,” PLoS One 18 , no. 5 ( 2023 ): e0285125 , 10.1371/journal.pone.0285125 . 37167221 PMC10174483
13 M. Frenking , J. Meermeier , L. Jiang , et al., “ Real‐World Talquetamab in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results From a German Multicenter Cohort ,” Leukemia 38 ( 2024 ): 1542 – 1551 .
14 S. Hadidi , S. Mailankody , et al., “ Real‐World Outcomes of Talquetamab in Patients With RRMM Treated in the United States ,” Blood Advances 8 , no. 20 ( 2024 ): 5000 – 5012 .
Nadine Abdullah, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA Niels Abildgaard, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, DENMARK Ingerid Abrahamsen, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, NORWAY Melissa Alsina, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, USA Kenneth Anderson, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Hervé Avet‐Loiseau, Institut Universitaire du cancer de Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, FRANCE Ashraf Badros, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Nizar Jacques Bahlis, University of Calgary—Arnie Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Calgary, CANADA Susan Bal, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA Rahul Banerjee, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington State, USA Dina Ben‐Yehuda, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, ISRAEL Jesús G. Berdeja, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, USA Michele Cavo, Bologna University School of Medicine—S.Orsola Hospital, Bologna, ITALY Ajai Chari, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California, USA Wen‐Ming Chen, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, CHINA Marta Chesi, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA Wee‐Joo Chng, National University Cancer Institute, SINGAPORE Yael Cohen, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Isreal Adam Cohen, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Gordon Cook, University of Leeds, England, UNITED KINGDOM Luciano Costa, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA Andrew Cowan, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA Carlos Fernández de Larrea, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, SPAIN Benjamin Derman, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA Juan Du, Changzheng Hospital; Naval Medical University, Shanghai, CHINA Hermann Einsele, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, GERMANY Gösta Gahrton, Karolinska Institute for Medicine, Huddinge, SWEDEN Francesca Gay, University of Torino, Turin, ITALY Sergio A. Giralt, Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA Simon Harrison, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA J Jean‐Luc Harousseau, University of Nantes, Nantes, FRANCE Joy Ho, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, AUSTRALIA Doris Hansen, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, USA Maung Myo Htut, City of Hope Medical Center, Newport Beach, California, USA Andrzej J. Jakubowiak, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA Murali Janakiram, City of Hope Medical Center, Newport Beach, California, USA Prashant Kapoor, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA Efstathios Kastritis, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, GREECE Jonathan Kaufman, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Kihyun Kim, Samsung Medical Center and Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, SOUTH KOREA Amrita Krishnan, City of Hope Medical Center, Newport Beach, California, USA Shaji Kumar, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota, USA Chara Kyriakou, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, England, UNITED KINGDOM Xavier Leleu, Hôpital La Mileterie at Centre Hospitalier Univeraitaire, Poitiers, FRANCE Yi Lin, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA Sagar Lonial, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Matthew frigault, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Johan L. Lund, Karolinska Institutet and Linköping University hospital, Stockholm, SWEDEN Elias Mai, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, GERMANY Angelo Maiolino, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL Elias Mai, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, GERMANY Angelo Maiolino, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL Sireesha Asoori Maringanti, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, California, USA Thomas Martin, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, California, USA Joaquin Martinez‐Lopez, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, SPAIN María‐Victoria Mateos, University Hospital of Salamanca, Salamanca, SPAIN Giampaolo Merlini, University of Pavia, Pavia, ITALY Hira Mian, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA Joseph Mikhael, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, USA Monique Minnema, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, THE NETHERLANDS Philippe Moreau, University Hospital of Nantes, Nantes, FRANCE Gareth Morgan, NYU Langone Health Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA Nikhil Munshi, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Omar Nadeem, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Chandramouli Nagarajan, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, SINGAPORE Ajay Nooka, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Michael O'Dwyer, National University of IRELAND‐Galway, Galway, IRELAND Rimke Oostvogel, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, THE NETHERLANDS Alberto Orfao, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, SPAIN Paula Rodriguez Otero, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, SPAIN Darren Pan, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA Krina Patel, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA Rashesh Popat, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, England, UNITED KINGDOM Noemí Puig, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, SPAIN