Division of Early Drug Development, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Department of Oncology and Hematology (DIPO), University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2024 Jun 1;44(3):e431766. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_431766.
Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have reshaped the cancer treatment landscape across a variety of different tumor types. ADCs' peculiar pharmacologic design combines the cytotoxic properties of chemotherapeutic agents with the selectivity of targeted therapies. At present, the approval of many ADCs used in clinical practice has not always been biomarker-driven. Indeed, predicting ADCs' activity and toxicity through the demonstration of specific biomarkers is still a great unmet need, and the identification of patients who can derive significant benefit from treatment with ADCs may often be uncertain. With the lack of robust predictive biomarkers to anticipate primary, intrinsic resistance to ADCs and no consolidated biomarkers to aid in the early identification of treatment resistance (ie, acquired resistance), the determination of precise biologic mechanisms of ADC activity and safety becomes priority in the quest for better patient-centric outcomes. Of great relevance, whether the target antigen expression is a determinant of ADCs' primary activity is still to be clarified, and available data remain quite controversial. Antigen expression assessment is typically performed on tissue biopsy, hence only providing information on a specific tumor site, therefore unable to capture heterogeneous patterns of tumor antigen expression. Quantifying the expression of the target antigen across all tumor sites would help better understand tumor heterogeneity, whereas molecularly characterizing tumor-intrinsic features over time might provide information on resistance mechanisms. In addition, toxicity can represent a critical concern, since most ADCs have a safety profile that resembles that of chemotherapies, with often unique adverse events requiring special management, possibly because of the differential in pharmacokinetics between the small-molecule agent versus payload of a similar class (eg, deruxtecan conjugate-related interstitial lung disease). As such, the identification of robust predictive biomarkers of safety and activity of ADCs has the potential to improve patient selection and enrich the population of patients most likely to derive a substantial clinical benefit, especially in those disease settings where different ADCs happen to be approved in competing clinical indications, with undefined biomarkers to make precise decision making and unclear data on how to sequence ADCs. At this point, the identification of clinically actionable biomarkers in the space of ADCs remains a top research priority.
抗体药物偶联物(ADCs)已经改变了各种不同肿瘤类型的癌症治疗格局。ADC 的独特药理设计结合了化疗药物的细胞毒性和靶向治疗的选择性。目前,许多在临床实践中使用的 ADC 的批准并不总是基于生物标志物。事实上,通过证明特定的生物标志物来预测 ADC 的活性和毒性仍然是一个巨大的未满足的需求,并且确定哪些患者可以从 ADC 治疗中获得显著益处通常是不确定的。由于缺乏强大的预测生物标志物来预测 ADC 的原发性内在耐药性,也没有综合的生物标志物来帮助早期识别治疗耐药性(即获得性耐药性),因此确定 ADC 活性和安全性的精确生物学机制成为了追求更好的以患者为中心的结果的首要任务。至关重要的是,靶抗原表达是否是 ADC 原发性活性的决定因素仍有待澄清,并且现有数据仍然存在很大争议。抗原表达评估通常在组织活检上进行,因此仅提供特定肿瘤部位的信息,因此无法捕获肿瘤抗原表达的异质性模式。在所有肿瘤部位定量表达目标抗原将有助于更好地了解肿瘤异质性,而随着时间的推移对肿瘤内在特征进行分子特征分析可能会提供有关耐药机制的信息。此外,毒性可能是一个关键问题,因为大多数 ADC 具有与化疗相似的安全性特征,通常具有独特的不良事件需要特殊管理,这可能是由于小分子药物与类似类别的有效载荷之间的药代动力学差异(例如,与 deruxtecan 缀合物相关的间质性肺病)。因此,识别 ADC 安全性和活性的稳健预测生物标志物有可能改善患者选择,并使最有可能获得显著临床获益的患者群体更加丰富,特别是在不同 ADC 碰巧在竞争的临床适应症中获得批准的疾病情况下,没有明确的生物标志物来做出精确的决策,也不清楚如何对 ADC 进行排序。在这一点上,在 ADC 领域中识别临床可行的生物标志物仍然是一个首要的研究重点。