ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of bispecific antibody teclistamab versus CAR-T cell therapies in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a retrospective evaluation.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of bispecific antibody teclistamab and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) to guide individualized treatment. This retrospective study enrolled 67 RRMM patients (excluded 6 of 73) hospitalized at Xinxiang Central Hospital (December 2024-May 2025), divided into teclistamab (n=32) and CAR-T (n=35) groups. Primary outcomes included overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes comprised complete response rate (CRR), duration of response (DOR), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate, overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs), hospital stays, direct medical costs, and cost-effectiveness ratio (CER). The CAR-T group showed higher CRR (P=0.011), ORR (P=0.029), MRD negativity rate (P=0.027), longer median DOR [HR: 3.35 (1.838, 6.10), P<0.001], PFS [HR: 4.407 (1.994, 9.74), P<0.001], and better OS (HR: 3.204 (1.015, 10.1), P=0.021) than the teclistamab group. However, the CAR-T group had higher incidences of cytokine release syndrome (P=0.033) and hematological AEs (P=0.040), longer hospital stays, higher direct costs, and higher CER (all P<0.001). Prior treatment lines were independent prognostic factors (P=0.036). CAR-T therapy outperforms teclistamab in efficacy and survival outcomes but has higher AEs and costs. Teclistamab demonstrates superior safety and shorter hospital stays, supporting individualized clinical selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.