Cevostamab correction fixes 1q status labeling in multiple myeloma figure
A correction in Nature Medicine has clarified a labeling error in the phase 1 trial of the FcRH5×CD3 bispecific antibody cevostamab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. In the originally published version, the left x-axis label in both panels of Extended Data Fig. 3b read “No 1q gain or amp.” It should have read “1q normal.” The HTML and PDF versions now carry the corrected wording.
The change is narrow, but it matters. In multiple myeloma, chromosomal abnormalities are not decorative annotations on a figure; they are part of the clinical grammar used to describe disease biology, risk, and subgroup structure. A label that distinguishes the absence of 1q gain or amplification from a statement that a sample is simply 1q normal can alter how a reader mentally sorts a subgroup, especially when scanning a complex translational figure in a high-impact trial report.
Why a small label carries clinical weight in myeloma reporting
Extended Data figures often do the quiet work that supports the main paper. They help readers judge whether response patterns track with biologic categories, whether a subgroup appears enriched or depleted, and whether the trial’s signals look consistent across disease features. In a setting like relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, those details are not academic footnotes. They shape how oncologists, investigators, and translational scientists interpret a bispecific antibody’s activity across molecular subsets.
Here, the correction concerned the left x-axis label in both panels of Extended Data Fig. 3b. The wording was revised from “No 1q gain or amp” to “1q normal.” That change brings the figure into alignment with the intended classification language. The substance of the trial did not change, and the correction does not introduce new outcomes, new analyses, or new safety information. It simply repairs the visual presentation of a biomarker category in the published record.
A corrected label can be especially important when readers are comparing subgroups that may be treated differently in future studies. In multiple myeloma, genomic definitions often anchor exploratory analyses and later inform eligibility criteria, stratified randomization, or hypothesis generation. A mislabeled axis can blur that distinction, even if the underlying data remain intact.
The trial context remains unchanged
The correction refers to the article titled “FcRH5×CD3 bispecific antibody cevostamab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a phase 1 trial.” The original article appeared on 22 July 2026, and the correction was published on 20 October 2026. The revised notice states that the HTML and PDF versions have been updated to reflect the corrected label.
No other part of the published correction describes alterations to the trial design, participant cohort, response outcomes, adverse events, or biomarker results. The amendment is limited to terminology in Extended Data Fig. 3b. Even so, precision in figure labels matters in early-phase oncology, where readers often rely on subgroup visuals to understand whether a therapy’s activity appears distributed evenly or concentrated in specific biologic subsets.
In a bispecific antibody study, that interpretive burden is real. Investigators and clinicians look to early-phase data not only for overall response signals, but also for hints about whether cytogenetic or molecular features track with treatment effect. A clean label ensures that any such reading starts from the right classification.
Editorial precision matters in translational oncology
Corrections like this rarely attract the attention given to efficacy signals or toxicity rates, yet they protect the reliability of the scientific record. Published oncology figures are frequently revisited by clinicians, statisticians, and trial designers who are building the next study around the last one. A mislabeled x-axis can propagate confusion into slides, reviews, and downstream secondary analyses if it is left uncorrected.
The corrected term, “1q normal,” is clinically specific and unambiguous. It tells the reader that the figure is referring to a standard 1q status category rather than merely the absence of a gain or amplification call in a looser sense. In a disease as genomically heterogeneous as multiple myeloma, that distinction is especially relevant because subgroup definitions often determine how investigators narrate patterns of response or resistance.
For readers returning to the cevostamab phase 1 paper, the practical takeaway is straightforward: the figure has been amended, the corrected terminology is now in place, and the underlying article remains otherwise unchanged. The correction keeps the paper’s biomarker language consistent with its intended interpretation, which is exactly what a responsible post-publication amendment should do.
The unresolved issue is not the correction itself, but how future efficacy and biomarker analyses in multiple myeloma will continue to define and report 1q status with the same precision across newer datasets.