PROMISE
PROMISE examines progression from myeloma precursors to overt multiple myeloma in a high-risk screened population; discussion distinguishes research from routine screening. The report cites five physicians, four of them medical oncologists, including a clinician described by the sources as a PROMISE principal investigator; another speaker is described by their source as working for Dana-Farber, the trial’s sponsor. Further questions concern treatment after precursor detection and selective marrow-biopsy use. What progression evidence, risk definitions and follow-up protections would justify selective intervention without treating people unlikely to progress?
- NCT03689595 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Nov 2, 2026
- Focused
8 findings, and what sits behind each
01. Support for research screening is not a blanket recommendation for routine screening
9 statements · 5 passages · 4 sources · 3 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Time to progression (TTP) from MGUS/SMM to overt multiple myeloma., Population and setting.
02. Precursor detection does not itself justify treatment
6 statements · 6 passages · 3 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Time to progression (TTP) from MGUS/SMM to overt multiple myeloma..
03. Risk assessment needs timing, trajectories and selective use of marrow biopsy
7 statements · 5 passages · 2 sources · 1 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Time to progression (TTP) from MGUS/SMM to overt multiple myeloma..
04. The US high-risk cohort is justified by feasibility and population relevance
10 statements · 10 passages · 6 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, The comparison.
05. Unexpectedly high detection yield drives interest, but positivity is not progression
7 statements · 7 passages · 3 sources · 1 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
06. Patient-initiated access is paired with result communication and specialist follow-up
5 statements · 2 passages · 2 sources · 1 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
07. Familial concern leads to hypotheses about early, undetectable clones
9 statements · 8 passages · 1 sources · 4 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
08. Susceptibility and progression mechanisms remain explicit research questions
5 statements · 6 passages · 3 sources · 1 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings. They show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree. The full report includes the interpretations and source links.
Select a finding to see what the full report holds for it: how many verified HCP statements and of what kind, the passages behind them, the sources and voices, and the counterview and limits it records. Select a part of the trial to see which findings draw on it.
- Finding 1 of 8
Support for research screening is not a blanket recommendation for routine screening
- statements
- 9
- passages
- 5
- sources
- 4
- named voices
- 3
What the statements areViews 4Questions and uncertainty 4Clinical experience 0Comparisons 1Restated results and context 0How passages are usedSupporting a statement 9Giving context 0Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 3
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 1 post or article
- 2 podcasts and video
- 1 publication
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Time to progression (TTP) from MGUS/SMM to overt multiple myeloma., Population and setting.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 9 statements cited to source and date, and the 4 sources linked where public.
Thicker lines mean more shared statements. A finding without a line goes beyond the registered design. Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings, and they show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree.
The full PROMISE report gives each finding its interpretation, the attributed views behind it, counterviews, limits and the verified HCP statements, each linked to the original. Get a complete report free to see what you get.
Which progression evidence, risk definitions and follow-up protections would justify moving from detection to selective intervention without treating people unlikely to progress?
Raised by the leading finding. The report shows what clinicians said and the sources behind it; it does not settle the question.
By the numbers
free- 71HCP commentary sources screened
- 13sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 8named in screened sources
- 7voices cited in the report
- 6cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 4 organizational or shared accounts, not counted as people.
- 97verified statements, each linked to its source
- 16of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 8findings
Screened sources were retrieved for this trial. Cited sources back at least one verified statement and include primary sources used for context. No count estimates how many clinicians hold a view. Size (Focused) is set by the 97 verified statements. Statements from sponsors, hosts and organisations are labelled and count apart from identified clinicians. A confirmed clinical role is one verified by the NPI registry or by the person's own institution's staff page; a role a source only states is not counted.
What's inside
free| Section | Items | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 8 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 9 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 97 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 11 | Free |
| Sources with links | 13 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 7 | Paid |
Trial aspects
10 discussed · 1 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Time to progression (TTP) from MGUS/SMM to overt multiple myeloma. | 7 | 3 |
| Population and setting | 11 | 6 |
| The comparison | 2 | 2 |
| Safety and tolerabilityno commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Research screening versus routine asymptomatic screening | 7 | 3 |
| From precursor detection to surveillance or selective intervention | 13 | 3 |
| Risk thresholds, longitudinal change and marrow-biopsy burden | 3 | 1 |
| Detection yield, assay sensitivity and the meaning of MGIP | 2 | 2 |
| Patient-initiated access, result communication and referral | 5 | 2 |
| Familial concern, early clones and limits of biological inference | 10 | 1 |
| Inherited, clonal, immune and environmental contributors to progression | 2 | 1 |
An aspect marked incomplete is a question the public commentary did not let us answer. We show it rather than hide it.
Sources
free| Channel | Screened | Cited | |
|---|---|---|---|
| X threads | 67 | 6 | |
| YouTube | 3 | 3 | |
| Bluesky threads | 1 | 0 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Publications | not screened | 3 | |
| Registry | not screened | 1 | |
max 14 / quarter
- Screened window
- Aug 30, 2018 → Sep 17, 2026
- Cited window
- Nov 24, 2018 → May 4, 2026
- Retrieved
- Nov 1, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- Predicting Progression of Developing Myeloma in a High-Risk Screened Population (PROMISE)
- Registry
- NCT03689595
- Study IDs
- 18-370
- Sponsor
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
- Design
- Observational · Observational, cohort, prospective
- Status
- Enrolling by invitation
- Enrollment
- 30,000 estimated
- Registered
- 2018-09-28
- Start
- 2018-10-31 actual
- Primary completion
- 2033-10-31 estimated
- Primary endpoint
- Time to progression (TTP) from MGUS/SMM to overt multiple myeloma.
- Interventions
- 1 registered
Scope and limits
freeThis report does not judge efficacy, estimate HCP prevalence or consensus or give treatment advice.
- Discussion that does not name the trial may be missing from this edition.
- Some clinician views in the sources used in this report are not yet captured as evidence in this edition.
- Some passages in the sources used in this report were not fully assessed for clinician views, so a view there may be missing from this edition.
- 79 statements in the sources reviewed for this edition are about other patients or topics, or only mention the trial, and are not counted.
- Further source limits apply, so some matching discussion may be missing.
- The sources reviewed for this edition are not a representative sample of HCP opinion. Searches emphasized PROMISE and its identifiers, and 849 potentially relevant sources that did not name the trial were not read; indirect discussion may therefore be missing.
- Several available passages were not fully evaluated. A further passage had unclear disease-population wording and could not support a reliable conclusion. The report cannot establish that all consequential views or objections have been captured.
- The HealthTree video passages are unattributed. They cannot be assigned to a named clinician or counted as additional independently identified endorsements.
- Some speakers' identities or clinical roles are not established in the sources used in this report; each statement is attributed only as far as its source shows.
- A speaker’s PROMISE role and another speaker’s Dana-Farber association are descriptions made by the sources. Their views should not be treated as independent external endorsements or evidence of consensus.
- Eligibility, screening counts, follow-up procedures and assay availability are described at different times. The sources do not establish current eligibility, reconcile recruitment figures or demonstrate present-day access across healthcare settings.
- No standalone protocol was available. The free-light-chain publication was accessible only as an abstract, limiting assessment of its full methods and qualifications.
- Prevalence findings, biobank clinical associations, progression hypotheses and hoped-for prevention benefits are different forms of evidence. The statements reviewed do not demonstrate a mortality, organ-damage prevention or cure benefit from PROMISE screening.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeLast checked for new commentary Nov 2, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update. No corrections.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. PROMISE (NCT03689595): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Nov 2, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/promise-nct03689595
For your AI agent
Paste this into ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot or your own agent. It previews this report through the free Erudio MCP server, tells you whether it answers your question, and orders it if you ask. Some agents ask you to confirm pasted instructions before acting; that is expected.
Help me decide whether to buy the Erudio report "PROMISE" (NCT03689595), and buy it for me if I ask. Erudio reports cover what clinicians say in public about one clinical trial, with every verified statement linked to its source.
1. Use the free Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/free; it needs no sign-in. Nothing needs installing: if it is not connected in this app and you can make HTTP requests, call it directly with JSON-RPC POSTs to that URL (initialize, then tools/call), sending "Accept: application/json, text/event-stream". Call get_report_card with slug "promise-03689595". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/promise-nct03689595.md instead.
2. In a few lines, tell me what the report covers: its findings, its verified statements and sources, its evidence window, what it leaves out, and the price of each product (offer). Then ask what I need it for, and say plainly whether this report answers it.
3. If I want it, ask for my work email and the product: the current edition, or 3, 6 or 12 months of weekly updates. Call create_order with report "NCT03689595", that product and email, then show me the quote and the checkout_url to pay by card. If you have a payment client for HTTP 402 payments and I agree, you can pay the pay_url instead. Nothing is charged until one is paid.
4. Once it is paid, call get_order with the status_url: it returns my license key. Then use the Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/mcp with the header "Authorization: Bearer <key>". Call read_report with report_id erudio-nct03689595 and sections ["all"], and summarize the findings for me with their sources. The full report is large (about 500 KB): save the response to a file and work from it rather than printing it. If you cannot, read sections ["narratives"] first, the executive summary and analysis.
When you tell me what clinicians said, give each view as theirs, with its source. Counts are the sources the report kept, not the share of clinicians who agree. Reports are not medical advice.
Keep the key private to my organization.Or read the record directly: JSON, Markdown or MCP
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/promise-nct03689595.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/promise-nct03689595.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "promise-03689595" })release 2e29448db86116fbf6a7ee30aeba74f35bb431682718accf7a98d1a6ab3d0bee