This review examines antibody drug conjugates in solid tumors, revealing their efficacy and toxicity outcomes, suggesting important implications for future treatments.
Over the last decade, there has been an increase in development of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), a drug class designed to bring chemotherapeutic agents to tumour sites. The pharmacokinetics of ADCs are complex, due to their multifaceted structure consisting of an antibody linked to a (chemotherapeutic) payload. This review provides an overview of the pharmacokinetics of approved ADCs for patients with solid tumours in relation to toxicity and/or efficacy outcomes. Due to the complex nature and in vivo modifications of an ADC, the pharmacokinetic exposure is measured partially or with surrogate entities. These entities include the calculated drug-to-antibody ratio (DAR)-corrected ADC, measured conjugated antibody, total antibody and/or free payload concentration. A clear exposure-efficacy and exposure-toxicity relation was evident for the majority of ADCs. A higher exposure of almost all ADCs approved for patients with solid tumours, specifically the conjugated antibody entity, was related to higher objective response rates. A higher exposure of the free circulating cytotoxic payload and of the surrogate entities of ADC exposure, of ADCs with cleavable linkers, was related to toxicity. This is unsurprising as a higher circulating payload may induce toxicities associated with the related chemotherapeutic compound. Non-cleavable linkers increase the plasma stability compared to cleavable linkers, resulting in the absence of an (systemic) exposure-toxicity relation. The exposure-response relations for efficacy and toxicity seem apparent based on current literature, but quantification of all ADC components should be considered to fully elucidate the exposure-response relations. This is a crucial next step for dose optimisation and development of a new generation of this important new therapeutic class.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lucassen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: