Antibody-drug conjugates in cancer therapy: mechanisms and clinical studies.

INTRODUCTION

Since the proposal of the “magic bullet” concept by German scientist Paul Ehrlich in 1913, 1 the development of antibody‐conjugated drugs (ADCs) has experienced both successes and setbacks. ADCs are drug molecules that combine highly targeted antibody molecules with highly cytotoxic small molecules. 2

However, the concept of ADC was initially proposed in 1967, 3 and it was not until 2000 that the first ADC drug, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO), was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) for treating acute myeloid leukemia (AML). 4 However, due to subsequent clinical findings indicating modest benefits but increased mortality, particularly from hepatic veno‐occlusive disease, GO was later withdrawn. 5 Subsequently, there was limited progress in ADC drug development during the following decade. The second ADC drug was launched in 2010 and approved by the US FDA in 2011 for the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL). 6 In 2013, ADCs achieved another breakthrough with the approval of Trastuzumab emtansine (TDM‐1) by the US FDA for human epidermal growth factor receptor‐2 (HER2)‐positive breast cancer. 7 This marked the first ADC targeting solid tumors. Henceforth research on ADC drugs has rapidly advanced, leading to the emergence of a growing number of ADC drugs in the market. 8 The evolution of ADC drugs from inception to maturity over the last century is depicted in Figure 1 .

The research and development of antibody drugs have seen continuous advancements, leading to the classification of marketed ADC drugs into three generations. 9 The first‐generation ADCs had limitations such as insufficient toxicity in the payload, unstable structure, and easy detachment of the toxin, resulting in a narrow therapeutic window and a high rate of failure. 4 The second‐generation ADCs, utilizing humanized monoclonal antibodies and more potent cytotoxic drugs, showed reduced immunogenicity, improved drug efficacy, and a wider therapeutic window compared with the first generation. 10 , 11 The third‐generation ADC drugs introduced site‐specific conjugates, enhancing the uniformity of drug‐to‐antibody ratio (DAR), reducing toxic side effects, and increasing efficacy, thereby expanding the treatment window. 12 Additionally, antibody optimization and new small molecules have improved drug specificity and therapeutic effects, with binding activity to cells expressing lower antigen levels. 13

ADC drugs exhibit distinct pharmacological properties and show significant activity in the field of antitumor treatment, while maintaining a higher level of safety compared with traditional chemotherapy. 2 , 14 , 15 , 16 In addition to pursuing enhanced efficacy, the current focus of research and development in ADC drugs also involves addressing the issue of therapeutic resistance. 17 This review aims to delve into the recent advancements in understanding the mechanisms of ADC action and resistance, as well as strategies to combat such resistance. The article further examines in detail the pivotal trials that contributed to the US FDA approval of all ADCs, with a particular focus on the robustness of the evidence. It also provides valuable insights into potential future research directions in this field.

MECHANISTIC INSIGHTS INTO ADCs IN TARGETED CANCER THERAPY

ADCs are composed of an antibody connected to a cytotoxic drug through a linker (Figure 2 ). This unique structure offers ADC drugs multiple advantages, allowing them to combine the potent killing capabilities of traditional small molecule chemotherapy with the targeted delivery features of antibodies. Upon administration of ADCs, the antibody component binds to the target antigen on the surface of tumor cells. Subsequently, tumor cells uptake the ADC molecules. A fraction of the ADC can attach to Fc receptors in endosomes, aiding in its transport to the cell surface. Through FcRn‐mediated transcytosis, this fraction is then released outside the cell. Conversely, other ADC–antigen complexes enter lysosomes, where enzymes or acidic conditions can degrade the ADC. Consequently, cytotoxic agents are released, which can either harm DNA or impede the division of tumor cells, ultimately resulting in their demise (Figure 3 ). The mechanism of ADCs described above is intricately linked to specific targeting antibodies, potent cytotoxic drugs, the linker, and the target antigen.

Antibody

The antibody component of the ADC recognizes the target antigen, and in disease treatment, monoclonal antibodies are typically used for their ability to specifically recognize a single antigen. 18 , 19 This specificity enhances the targeting of the drug and reduces off‐target effects.

Monoclonal antibodies can be classified into four main types: mouse antibodies, chimeric antibodies, humanized antibodies, and human antibodies. 19 Initially, mouse‐derived antibodies were commonly used, but they posed issues such as immunogenicity, poor efficacy, and short half‐life when introduced into the human body. 19 In 1975, hybridoma technology enabled the development of chimeric antibodies, which have human constant regions and mouse variable regions. 20 Chimeric antibodies reduce the mouse component while enhancing human properties, although immunogenicity remains a concern. 21 To address this, researchers further minimized the mouse components to the complementarity‐determining regions, resulting in humanized antibodies. 19 With the advancement of recombinant protein expression technology, fully human antibodies could be produced. Currently, the majority of ADCs on the market or under development utilize humanized or fully human antibodies, which exhibit strong antigen‐binding ability, high selectivity, long half‐life, and minimal immunogenicity. 22 , 23

Bispecific antibody ADC therapy has seen a recent surge in popularity. 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 By incorporating bispecific antibodies into ADCs, researchers aim to enhance the cellular internalization of ADCs. Bispecific ADCs can be strategically designed to bind to two distinct, nonoverlapping epitopes on the same target antigen, leading to the formation of robust receptor clusters and improved internalization, lysosomal transport, and degradation processes. Additionally, bispecific ADCs can be engineered to target different antigens. For instance, studies have demonstrated that bispecific ADCs targeting both HER2 and prolactin receptors (PRL‐R) exhibit superior efficacy in killing target cells expressing both HER2 and PRL‐R compared with ADCs targeting only HER2. This suggests that combining the ADC target (e.g., HER2) with a rapidly internalizing protein (e.g., PRL‐R) facilitates swift internalization and lysosomal degradation. 28 Furthermore, the use of bispecific antibodies in ADCs can enhance the selectivity of tumor targeting by binding to two antigens on tumor cells. Despite the promising potential of bispecific antibody ADCs, this field is still in the early stages of research and development, with most products currently undergoing preclinical investigations. 25

Effector molecule: cytotoxic payload

The cytotoxic payloads of ADCs act as the potent end‐effector components responsible for killing cancer cells. The toxicity of these effector molecules in ADCs is often higher than that of ordinary small molecules, a characteristic inherent to ADCs. Each antibody typically carries a limited number of effector molecules, known as the DAR value, which determines the pharmacokinetics, potency, and toxicity of the ADC drug. In traditional random drug conjugation strategies, drugs with varying DAR values are mixed together, and the DAR of each antibody may vary between 0 and 8. 29 , 30 , 31 The heterogeneity of DAR will result in heterogeneity in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety and will also lead to unstable drug structure, increased off‐target toxicity, drug aggregation, and other problems that are not conducive to later development. 32 , 33 Each antibody typically carries a limited number of effector molecules, resulting in heterogeneity that impacts pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and overall drug stability. 31 , 34 While maximizing DAR can enhance antitumor efficacy, it is essential to balance this with concerns such as increased protein aggregation and ADC clearance that may reduce efficacy and safety. Strategies like site‐specific conjugation, involving engineered cysteine residues, unnatural amino acids in antibody sequences, and enzymatic conjugation through glycotransferases and transglutaminases, aim to make DAR more homogeneous. 35 , 36 , 37 Maintaining a suitable DAR value remains a critical aspect that requires further exploration.

The cytotoxic molecules commonly used in cancer treatment are typically classified into three categories based on their mode of action. 38 , 39 The first category includes molecules that target DNA or topoisomerase I, such as calicheamicins, duocarmycins, pyrrolobenzodiazepines, SN‐38 (the active form of irinotecan), and deruxtecan. The second category consists of tubulin inhibitors used for payloads, like auristatins and eribulin from marine sources, and maytansinoids from plants. While other tubulin inhibitors, such as derivatives of taxol, vincristine, and colchicine, have been explored in ADCs, their efficacy has been limited. 40 , 41 The third category comprises alkylating agents, like duocarmazine.

Several dual‐payload ADC synthesis strategies have been developed to attach two drugs to the same linker. 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 For example, Levengood et al . 43 introduced the first dual‐loaded ADC that combines monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) and monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF) on a short peptide ligand with orthogonally protected cysteine residues, resulting in a DAR of 16 (8+8). This dual‐loaded ADC exhibited potent antitumor activity, and resistance in tumor cells could potentially be overcome by adding complementary payloads.

Additionally, some ADC drugs kill cancer cells through “bystander effect.” 47 Cleavable linkers are essential for inducing the bystander effect. 48 ADCs containing cleavable linkers are internalized by tumor cells that have high antigen expression. Once inside the cells, the drugs degrade in lysosomes, releasing free toxins (hydrophobic and uncharged) that can either exit the cell membrane to directly kill target cells or penetrate the membrane to reach the tumor microenvironment. In the tumor microenvironment, they can attack surrounding tumor cells with low or no antigen expression (referred to as bystander cells), thus demonstrating the bystander effect. 47 , 49 However, it is important to note that cleavable linkers also pose potential safety risks. 48 The bystander effect may lead to the diffusion of free toxins from target tumor cells or their entry into the bloodstream, potentially causing toxicity to nontumor tissues. 49 , 50

Linker

The linker is a crucial component in ADC design, facilitating the connection between the antibody and the cytotoxic payload through covalent coupling. While primarily serving to link the antibody and effector molecule, the linker plays a multifaceted role beyond mere connection. 51 Various properties of the linker, such as conjugation chemistry, length, and steric hindrance, directly impact the toxicity, specificity, stability, and efficacy of ADCs. 52 An optimal linker should exhibit stability in circulation (with a half‐life approximately 10 times longer than that of the ADC) and efficiently release the cytotoxic payload within the tumor post‐internalization. 53 , 54 Additionally, the hydrophilicity or lipophilicity of the linker can influence payload coupling and reduce immunogenicity.

Researchers have explored different types of linkers, which can be broadly classified into two categories: cleavable and noncleavable linkers. 51 , 55 , 56 Cleavable linkers have the ability to release a metabolite of the effector molecules from the ADC, allowing it to enter cells, either at the tumor site or within endosomes and lysosomes. These cleavable linkers are further divided into chemically cleavable linkers and enzymatically cleavable linkers, such as peptide‐based linkers, β‐glucuronide‐based linkers, and phosphate‐based linkers. 51 Notably, β‐glucuronide‐based linkers consist of β‐glucuronidase‐sensitive linkers and β‐galactosidase‐sensitive linkers. Premature cleavage of these linkers can lead to the effector molecules harming normal cells. 57 On the other hand, noncleavable linkers, such as thioether linkers and maleimido caproyl linkers, require internalization of the ADC into cells and subsequent breakdown by lysosomes to release the effector molecules. ADCs with noncleavable linkers depend on complete lysosomal enzymatic degradation of the antibody for payload release, resulting in simultaneous dissociation of the linker. 58 Therefore, the use of noncleavable linkers must ensure that the linker–drug complex retains the ability to kill tumor cells. Considering the cytotoxicity of the payload and bystander effect, cleavable linkers are prioritized in ADC development, despite a few approved noncleavable effective linkers.

In recent decades, significant progress has been made in optimizing the structure and expanding the mechanisms of ADCs. This includes the development of various cleavable linkers such as cathepsin‐cleavable, acid‐cleavable, glutathione‐cleavable, Fe(II)‐cleavable, novel enzyme‐cleavable, photoresponsive, and bioorthogonal linkers. 59 , 60 , 61 These novel cleavable linkers have shown increased selectivity for targeting tumors. Among them, cathepsin, glutathione, and acid‐cleavable linkers have been extensively researched and incorporated into approved ADCs. 58 , 62 Notably, phosphatase‐responsive and bioorthogonal cleavable linkers have the potential to overcome intracellular drug release limitations seen in traditional ADCs. 51 , 63 Early data on these new linkers are promising and are expected to significantly advance the development of ADC drugs in the future.

Target antigen

In previous studies, various strategies have been devised to combat cancer, including neutralizing target receptors, downregulating receptor levels, interrupting cellular pathways, antibody‐dependent cell‐mediated cytotoxicity, complement‐dependent cytotoxicity, ADCs‐dependent cellular phagocytosis, and suppressing immune checkpoints. 64 , 65 , 66 However, a different approach is taken by ADCs. This method involves initially binding the antibody moiety to the target antigen, which is then transported into the cell through receptor internalization, allowing the effector molecule to exert a cytotoxic effect. 8 Therefore, the selection of the target antigen plays a crucial role in ADC.

One major drawback of small molecule drugs is their lack of specificity, leading to toxicity not only in cancer cells but also in normal cells. ADCs effectively overcome this issue by precisely delivering the effector molecules to cancer cells. As a result, the identification of specific antigens of cancer cells has become increasingly feasible since the discovery of the first tumor antigen in the 1970s, 20 thereby accelerating the development of ADCs.

Among the ADCs used in the treatment of breast cancer, the most commonly targeted receptor for monoclonal antibodies is HER2. 67 , 68 , 69 Around 90−95% of AML patients express the CD33 protein on the surface of leukemic blast cells, making it an ideal target for the treatment of this disease. 70 The P97 receptor is highly expressed on the surface of melanoma cells, with each cell having a number ranging from 80,000 to 280,000, whereas its expression level on the surface of other tumor cells is very low. 71 Consequently, the ADC drug L49‐vcMMAF can selectively act on melanoma cells without affecting other tumor cells. 71 However, it is important to note that high expression of antigens alone does not guarantee the effectiveness of ADC drugs. For instance, although CD21 is highly expressed, it forms a complex with CD19 on the surface of B cells, which hinders its internalization. 72 Consequently, ADC drugs targeting CD21 cannot effectively enter the cells to exert their action. 72

A suitable target antigen for ADC therapy must meet the following criteria. First, the target antigen should be highly expressed on tumor cells and have low expression on normal cells. Second, while phage display techniques can be used to isolate the genes coding for target‐specific antibody variable regions, many antibodies used in ADCs are still produced by hybridoma technology. Therefore, the target molecule needs to be antigenic. Third, the target antigen should be present on the cell surface to enable interaction with ADCs in the external environment. Last, the target antigen should have the ability to internalize, allowing the bound ADC molecules to enter the cells. These conditions are crucial as the functionality of ADCs relies on them. 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 While there are more than 300 target antigens for antibody‐based therapy, only around 50 have been developed as ADC targets (Table 1 ). Of note, although most approved ADCs are targeting internalizing antigens, ADCs targeting noninternalizing antigens at the surface of cancer cells or the stroma can also be developed. 77 , 78

THERAPEUTIC TRIALS

The technology for developing ADCs has been consistently advancing, resulting in a growing number of ADC drugs being developed for different types of cancer. Currently, over 300 ADC candidates are being studied at various clinical trial phases, leading to an increase in market share due to their encouraging outcomes.

The most popular research and development of ADCs focus on tumors. Additionally, ADC drugs can be effective in patients with low tumor antigen expression through their bystander effect, thus expanding the indication population. Clinical trials have also revealed the expansion of indications to include infections (e.g., human immunodeficiency virus, lung diseases), autoimmune diseases (such as spinal arthritis and Alzheimer's disease), and metabolic diseases (such as obesity and diabetes). 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84

In the field of oncology, currently approved ADCs target specific proteins overexpressed by cancer cells, such as HER2, trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop2), Nectin‐4, and EGFR in solid tumors, and CD19, CD22, CD33, CD30, and CD79b in hematologic malignancies. 85 The success of T‐DM1 and recent approvals like T‐Dxd, sacituzumab govitecan (SG), and enfortumab vedotin have led to an increase in ADCs for solid tumors. 17 , 86 , 87 , 88 Research in oncology and immunology has expanded the selection of ADC target antigens beyond traditional tumor cell antigens to include targets in the tumor microenvironment, like the stroma and vasculature. 89 , 90 Recent evidence from preclinical and clinical studies suggests that components of the neovascular system, subcutaneous extracellular matrix, and tumor matrix could serve as valuable target antigens for ADC drug development. 91 Several key clinical studies that have resulted in US FDA‐approved ADCs are outlined in Table 2 .

HER2

HER2/ERBB2/NEU, a member of the ErbB receptor tyrosine kinase family, plays a crucial role in cell growth, differentiation, and survival. 92 Amplification of HER2 has been associated with poor prognosis in various tumor types such as advanced breast cancer, gastric cancers, colorectal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas, and non‐small‐cell lung cancer. 93 HER2‐targeted ADCs are currently the standard therapy for solid tumors expressing or harboring mutations in HER2. 94 , 95 , 96

TDM‐1 was the first ADC approved in 2013 for treating breast cancer. It combines the humanized monoclonal HER2‐targeting trastuzumab with the highly potent cytotoxic activity of the microtubule inhibitor DM1, a derivative of maytansine. 97 Trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS‐8201; T‐DXd) is a novel humanized HER2‐directed ADC with a high DAR (8:1) that was approved by the US FDA in 2019. 98 The structure of T‐DXd includes an anti‐HER2 IgG1 antibody (trastuzumab), a stable tetrapeptide‐based cleavable linker, and the exatecan derivative MAAA‐1181a (DXd), a DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor with 10‐fold higher inhibitory potency than irinotecan. T‐DXd has shown antitumor activity not only on HER2‐positive tumor cells but also on neighboring tumor cells with or without HER2 expression through a bystander effect. 98 The efficacy of TDM1 and T‐DXd has been demonstrated in randomized trials as first‐line, second‐line, or later treatment for solid cancer. Disitamab vedotin (RC48) is composed of: (1) hertuzumab, a new generation anti‐HER2 humanized monoclonal antibody with high specificity and affinity for HER2; (2) a maleimide–cysteine–valine–citrulline–para‐aminobenzyloxycarbonyl linker that releases the cytotoxic payload; and (3) a cytotoxic payload, MMAE, which inhibits microtubule polymerization in actively dividing cells. 99 , 100 MMAE is a synthetic derivative of auristatin with potent antimitotic activity, leading to cell cycle arrest and eventual cell death. 101

Breast cancer

Phase III trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of T‐DM1 in various treatment settings for HER2‐positive breast cancer, following promising results from phase I and II trials. 102 , 103 The EMILIA trial ( NCT00829166 ) demonstrated that T‐DM1 improved progression‐free and overall survival (OS) compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine in patients with previously treated HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer. Among 991 patients, T‐DM1 showed a median progression‐free survival (PFS) of 9.6 versus 6.4 months for lapatinib plus capecitabine, and a median OS of 30.9 versus 25.1 months, respectively. The rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was lower with T‐DM1 (41%) compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine (57%).

A subsequent open‐label phase III TH3RESA trial ( NCT01419197 ) involved 602 HER2‐positive advanced breast cancer patients who had been previously treated with trastuzumab, lapatinib, and a taxane. 104 The trial showed that the mOS was significantly longer with TDM‐1 compared with treatment of physician's choice (22.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 19.4–27.5] vs. 15.8 months [13.5–18.7]; HR 0.68 [95% CI, 0.54–0.85]; p = 0.0007). In the context of previously untreated HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer, T‐DM1 demonstrated improved tolerability and noninferior PFS compared with a taxane plus trastuzumab in the phase III MARIANNE study ( NCT01120184 ). However, T‐DM1 in combination with pertuzumab as neoadjuvant therapy resulted in a lower rate of pathological complete responses (CRs) when compared with the standard treatment of docetaxel, carboplatin, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab (44.4 vs. 55.7%, p = 0.016) as observed in the KRISTINE trial ( NCT02131064 ). 105 , 106 Additionally, findings from the KATHERINE trial ( NCT01772472 ) indicated that adjuvant treatment with T‐DM1 reduced the risk of recurrence of invasive disease or death by 50% compared with continuing adjuvant trastuzumab among patients with HER2‐positive early breast cancer and residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus HER2‐targeted therapy. 107 Notably, patients receiving T‐DM1 experienced a higher percentage of grade ≥3 adverse events compared with those receiving trastuzumab (25.7 vs. 15.4%). 107 Overall, based on these results, T‐DM1 has been recommended for adjuvant, first‐line, and second‐line treatment in breast cancer patients. 108

T‐DXd was initially assessed in HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer patients who had previously been treated with T‐DM1. The DESTINY‐Breast01 trial ( NCT03248492 ) demonstrated sustained antitumor effects, with 112 out of 184 participants (60.9%) showing a response to therapy at the recommended dosage of 5.4 mg/kg. The median PFS was reported to be 16.4 months. 109 Although 13.6% of patients experienced interstitial lung disease, leading to four deaths, the US FDA granted accelerated approval for T‐DXd in adults with unresectable or metastatic HER2‐positive breast cancer who had undergone two or more prior treatments. 110 Subsequently, the DESTINY‐Breast 02 trial ( NCT03523585 ) compared the efficacy and safety of T‐DXd versus physician's choice treatment in 608 HER2‐positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer patients. 111 Results indicated a median PFS of 17.8 months in the T‐DXd group versus 6.9 months in the physician's choice group (HR 0.36 [0.28−0.45]; p < 0.0001). Common adverse events in both groups included nausea, vomiting, hair loss, fatigue, and diarrhea, with T‐DXd‐associated interstitial lung disease occurring in 42 (10%) patients. Overall, the study reinforced the favorable therapeutic outcomes of T‐DXd in HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer patients.

In the recent DESTINY‐Breast03 clinical trial ( NCT03529110 ), T‐DXd demonstrated a significant improvement in OS and PFS when compared with T‐DM1. This led to a 36% reduction in the risk of death for patients with HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with trastuzumab plus a taxane. 112 The median PFS for T‐DXd was 28.8 months (95% CI, 22.4–37.9) compared with 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.6–8.2) for T‐DM1, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.26−0.43; p < 0.0001). The median OS was not reached for T‐DXd (95% CI, 40.5 months—not estimable) and T‐DM1 (34.0 months—not estimable), with an HR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47–0.87; p = 0.0037). The percentage of patients alive at 12 months was 94.1% (T‐DXd) and 85.9% (T‐DM1), with an HR of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.36–0.86). The ORR was 79.7% (T‐DXd) and 34.2% (T‐DM1). The DESTINY‐Breast04 trial investigated the effects of T‐DXd in patients with HER2‐low metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two prior lines of chemotherapy. Among all patients, the median PFS was 9.9 months (T‐DXd) and 5.1 months (physician's choice standard chemotherapy), with an HR of 0.50 ( p < 0.001), and OS was 23.4 months (T‐DXd) and 16.8 months (standard chemotherapy), with an HR of 0.64 ( p = 0.001). In the hormone receptor‐positive subgroup, the median PFS was 10.1 months (T‐DXd) and 5.4 months (physician's choice), with an HR of 0.51 ( p < 0.001), and OS was 23.9 months (T‐DXd) and 17.5 months (physician's choice), with a HR for death of 0.64 ( p = 0.003).

On the basis of these findings, T‐DXd significantly extends the survival of patients with HER2‐low expressing or HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer, indicating its potential as an alternative treatment option for this specific population. 113 , 114 However, the confirmed objective response rate (ORR; primary endpoint) of T‐DXd in the phase II DAISY trial ( NCT04132960 ) was 70.6% (95% CI, 58.3–81) in the HER2‐overexpressing group, 37.5% (95% CI, 26.4–49.7) in the HER2‐low expression group, and 29.7% (95% CI, 15.9–47) in the HER2 nonexpressing group. 115 These results indicate that HER2 status remains a key factor in determining the responsiveness to T‐DXd.

Non‐small cell lung cancer

In a phase II study by Hotta et al ., 116 DM1 (at a dose of 3.6 mg/kg) demonstrated limited efficacy against HER2‐positive non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The primary endpoint, an ORR, was achieved by only one patient (6.7%; 95% CI, 0.3–27.9), with seven patients (46.7%) showing stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD). The median PFS was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.4–4.0), and the median OS was 10.9 months (95% CI, 4.4–12.0). In a separate phase II clinical study, T‐DM1 was administered to forty‐nine previously treated patients with advanced HER2‐overexpressing NSCLC (IHC 2+, 29; IHC 3+, 20) to evaluate its efficacy. 117 The HER2 2+ cohort did not show any objective responses, with 28% having SD and 55% showing PD. In contrast, the HER2 3+ cohort had four partial responses (PRs) (overall response rate, 20%; 95% CI, 5.7–43.7). Clinical benefit rates were 7% (HER2 2+) and 30% (HER2 3+). Median OS was 12.2 months (95% CI, 3.8–23.3) in the HER2 2+ group and 15.3 months (95% CI, 4.1–not reached) in the HER2 3+ group, with comparable median PFS of 2.6 months (HER2 2+) and 2.7 months (HER2 3+).

The anticancer activity of T‐DXd in patients with HER2‐mutant NSCLC was initially studied in a dose‐expansion, phase I trial across various advanced solid tumors by Tsurutani et al . 118 ( NCT02564900 ). Among 11 previously treated NSCLC patients with HER2‐mutant disease, the median PFS was 11.3 months (95% CI, 8.1–14.3) with an ORR of 72.7% (eight out of 11). In another multicenter clinical trial, DESTINY‐Lung01 ( NCT03505710 ), 91 patients with HER2‐mutant NSCLC were enrolled. 119 The T‐DXd group showed a median PFS and OS of 8.2 months (95% CI, 6.0–11.9) and 17.8 months (95% CI, 13.8–22.1), respectively. However, 46% of patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events, with neutropenia (19%) being the most common. The randomized phase II trial, DESTINY‐Lung02 ( NCT04644237 ), included 102 and 50 patients with HER2‐mutant metastatic NSCLC in the T‐DXd 5.4 and 6.4 mg/kg arms, respectively. 120 Results showed an ORR of 49.0% (95% CI, 39.0–59.1) in the 5.4 mg/kg arm, and 56.0% (95% CI, 41.3–70.0%) in the 6.4 mg/kg arm. The median PFS and OS were 9.9 months (95% CI, 7.4–not reached) and 19.5 months (95% CI, 13.6–not reached) in the 5.4 mg/kg arm, and 15.4 months (95% CI, 8.3–not reached) and not reached (95% CI, 12.1–not reached) in the 6.4 mg/kg arm. The estimated 1‐year OS rate with T‐DXd 5.4 and 6.4 mg/kg was 67% (95% CI, 56–76) and 73% (95% CI, 57–84), respectively. Drug‐induced interstitial lung disease occurred in 28.0% of patients in the 6.4 mg/kg arm, compared with 12.9% in the 5.4 mg/kg arm. The US FDA has approved T‐DXd as the first anti‐HER2 agent for patients with HER2‐mutant NSCLC. 86

Gastric/gastroesophageal junction carcinomas

The DS8201‐A‐J101 ( NCT02564900 ) trial was conducted to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of T‐DXd in patients with advanced HER2‐positive gastric or gastroesophageal and breast cancer that had not responded to standard treatments. 121 Results showed that all four patients with HER2‐positive gastric cancer achieved disease control, with two patients showing PR. A subsequent phase I study ( NCT02564900 ) involving 44 previously treated patients with HER2‐positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction carcinomas demonstrated a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity of T‐DXd. 122 Notably, 25% of patients experienced serious adverse events, with an ORR of 43.2%. A phase II trial comparing T‐DXd with chemotherapy in 125 patients with HER2‐positive advanced gastric cancer (vs. 62 patients receiving chemotherapy) revealed a significantly higher ORR with T‐DXd (51 vs. 14%, p < 0.001). Additionally, T‐DXd treatment led to a higher CR rate, greater reduction in tumor size, and longer mOS compared with chemotherapy. The median PFS was also longer in the T‐DXd group than in the chemotherapy group. The efficacy and safety of T‐DXd in HER2‐low gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma were investigated in an exploratory cohort study as part of a phase II trial. The results showed that T‐DXd demonstrated clinical activity in patients with heavily pretreated HER2‐low gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. 123 Among 19 patients with IHC 2+/ISH−, 26.3% achieved PR and 63.2% had SD. The median PFS and OS were 4.4 and 7.8 months, respectively, with a 12‐month OS rate of 40.0%. In the other cohort of 21 patients with IHC 1+, the disease control rate (DCR) was 71.4%, with 9.5% achieving PR and 61.9% having SD. The median PFS and OS were 8.5 and 2.8 months, respectively, with a 12‐month OS rate of 25.7%.

Patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2‐positive gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, who had previously undergone trastuzumab‐based therapy, were granted US FDA approval to receive T‐DXd on January 15, 2021. 124 Additionally, ongoing clinical trials are exploring the use of T‐DXd in HER2‐positive gastric cancer, both as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy and trastuzumab.

Disitamab vedotin has been approved in China for patients with HER2‐positive gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who have undergone two or more chemotherapy regimens based on several clinical trials. 100 , 125 , 126 , 127 The drug demonstrated significant efficacy, with an ORR of 15.0% and DCR of 45.0% in the initial trial ( NCT02881190 ). In the analysis of gastric cancer patients with different HER2 statuses, the ORRs were 35.7% for IHC 2+/FISH−, 20% for IHC 2+/FISH+, and 13.6% for IHC 3+. In a subsequent phase II study ( NCT03556345 ), 125 HER2‐positive patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer, who were on second‐line or later treatment, were included in the final analysis. 126 The ORR and DCR, as assessed by an independent review committee, were 24.8% (95% CI, 17.5−33.3%) and 42.4% (95% CI, 33.6−51.6%), respectively. The 12‐month survival rate was 33.3%, with a median OS of 7.9 months (95% CI, 6.7–9.9). Combining disitamab vedotin with toripalimab showed enhanced clinical benefits, with a median PFS of 6.2 months (95% CI, 4.0–6.9%) and median OS of 16.8 months (95% CI, 7.2–not reached). PRs were observed in 12 out of 28 evaluable participants. 127

Other solid tumors

The HERACLES‐B ( NCT03225937 ) clinical trial was the first to explore the use of ADC in patients with RAS/BRAF wild‐type and HER2+ metastatic colorectal cancer that was resistant to chemotherapy. 128 In this phase II trial with 31 previously treated patients, pertuzumab was administered in combination with T‐DM1. While the primary objective of ORR was 9.7% (95% CI, 0–28%), falling below the expected success threshold, the DCR was 77.4% and PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.6–5.9). These results suggest that T‐DM1 could be a promising treatment option for HER2+ colorectal cancer.

Several clinical trials have shown promising efficacy and safety data in combining T‐DXd with other treatments for pretreated HER2‐expressing metastatic colorectal cancer. 129 , 130 The DESTINY‐CRC01 study ( NCT03384940 ) enrolled 53 patients with HER2‐positive expression between February 2018 and July 2019, all of whom received T‐DXd. A confirmed objective response was seen in 24 patients (45.3%) during a follow‐up of over 27 weeks. The 6‐month PFS and OS rates were 53.0% (95% CI, 37.0–66.7) and 76.6% (95% CI, 61.5–86.4), respectively. Median PFS was 6.9 months (4.1–not reached), while median OS was not reached (95% CI, 0.74 months—not evaluable). Grade 3 or higher side effects were observed in at least 10% of patients, including decreased neutrophil count in 17 patients and anemia in 11 patients. However, T‐DXd did not show antitumor activity in patients with HER2‐low metastatic colorectal cancer tumors (IHC2 + and ISH‐negative; IHC1 + ), as no confirmed objective responses were noted.

The phase II study (KAMELEON, NCT02999672 ) provides support for the potential use of T‐DM1 monotherapy as a treatment option regardless of tumor type for patients with HER2‐positive advanced urothelial bladder cancer or pancreatic cancer/cholangiocarcinoma. 131 PR was observed in five patients in the urothelial bladder cancer cohort and one patient in the pancreatic cancer/cholangiocarcinoma cohort, resulting in an ORR of 38.5 and 14.3%, respectively. None of the patients in either cohort achieved a CR.

The DESTINY‐PanTumor02 phase II trial assessed the effectiveness and safety of T‐DXd in patients with HER2‐expressing solid tumors ( NCT04482309 ). 132 A total of 268 eligible patients with HER2‐positive solid tumors were included, such as those with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic biliary tract, bladder, cervical, endometrial, ovarian, pancreatic, and salivary gland cancer, as well as other solid cancers like malignant neoplasm of unknown primary site, extramammary Paget disease, oropharyngeal neoplasm, cutaneous melanoma, and various others. Among the 267 patients evaluated, 99 patients (37.1%) showed a confirmed objective response according to investigator assessment. Notably, responses were seen in patients who had or had not received prior HER2 therapy. Overall, 100 patients (37.5% [95% CI, 31.6–43.6]) evaluated by independent central review achieved a confirmed ORR, with a median PFS of 6.9 months and OS of 13.4 months. Patients with IHC 3+ status had the most significant benefit from T‐DXd, with an ORR of 61.3%, median duration of response (DoR) of 22.1 months, median PFS of 11.9 months, and median OS of 21.1 months. These findings led to the US FDA granting accelerated approval to T‐DXd for HER2‐overexpressing (IHC 3+) solid tumors without alternative treatment options on April 5, 2024.

In a phase I trial ( NCT04280341 ) conducted in China, 56 patients with solid tumors, including gastric, gastroesophageal junction, breast cancer, and other solid tumors, were treated with disitamab vedotin and toripalimab. Of the 24 patients who received disitamab vedotin, the confirmed ORR was 25% (95% CI, 10−47), DCR was 75% (95% CI, 53−90), and median OS was 10.5 months. 127

TROP2

TROP2, a product of the tumor‐associated calcium signal transducer 2 (TACSTD2) gene, is a transmembrane glycoprotein with a short cytoplasmic tail, a single transmembrane region, and a large extracellular region. While sporadically expressed in normal tissue, TROP2 is frequently found in many tumors, playing a role in cancer cell proliferation, apoptosis, and invasion, often linked to poor prognosis. 133 , 134 , 135 , 136

Based on hRS7, a humanized IgG1 mAb targeting TROP2, a novel third‐generation ADC named SG was developed by conjugating hRS7 with the derivative CL2A of the metabolite of the topoisomerase inhibitor irinotecan. SG (IMMU‐132) demonstrated preliminary antitumor activity and acceptable tolerability in previously treated solid cancers during the phase I/II IMMU‐132‐01 basket trial ( NCT01631552 ). 137 , 138 , 139 The efficacy of SG was observed across various malignancies, with promising results seen in histological cohorts of NSCLC, small cell lung cancer (SCLC), urothelial carcinoma, and metastatic breast cancer. 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 Additionally, other anti‐TROP‐2 ADCs such as SKB264 and datopotamab deruxtecan have shown potent antitumor activity in preclinical studies. 144 , 145 Datopotamab deruxtecan, composed of a recombinant humanized anti‐TROP2 IgG1 mAb conjugated with a Topo I inhibitor (DXd) via a tetrapeptide‐based linker, is a TROP‐2 ADC with a cleavable tetrapeptide linker and a more potent topoisomerase inhibitor payload compared with SG. 145 This design confers increased stability in circulation and a longer half‐life compared with SG.

SG has shown significant efficacy in treating relapsed patients with metastatic triple‐negative breast cancer (mTNBC). 146 , 147 The ASCENT clinical trials ( NCT02574455 ) demonstrated that SG provided a statistically significant PFS and OS benefit compared with chemotherapy in mTNBC patients who had undergone at least two prior therapies. The ORR was 35% with SG, significantly higher than the 5% seen with single‐agent chemotherapy. Common side effects included myelosuppression and diarrhea. SG is the first ADC drug approved for mTNBC therapy targeting Trop‐2. 147 , 148 In patients with hormone receptor‐positive/HER2‐negative endocrine‐resistant metastatic breast cancer, SG showed a longer PFS compared with chemotherapy [5.5 months (95% CI, 4.2–7.0) vs. 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.1–4.4); HR 0.66, p = 0.0003)]. 149 In the TROPHY‐U‐01 phase II trial ( NCT03547973 ), SG was effective in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had progressed on two prior lines of therapy, 142 , 150 with an ORR of 27% (95% CI, 19.5–36.6) at a median follow‐up of 9.1 months, and promising median PFS (5.4 months, 95% CI, 3.5–7.2 months) and OS (10.9 months, 95% CI, 9.0–13.8 months), respectively. These results led to US FDA approval of SG as a treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who had previously received platinum‐based chemotherapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors. In the IMMU‐132‐01 trial, out of three lung cancer patients, one patient with SCLC (TROP‐2 expression by IHC of 3+) who had received two lines of chemotherapy, showed a 38% reduction in the sum of the longest diameters ( NCT01631552 ). However, the other two patients with SCLC and NSCLC did not exhibit any antitumor activity. 139 In a single‐arm expansion trial involving patients with metastatic NSCLC who had received multiple prior therapies, the ORR was 19% with a median PFS of 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.2–7.1 months) and a clinical benefit rate of 43%. 140 Despite Trop‐2 being the target of SG, no correlation was found between TROP2 expression and responses. 140 Subsequent studies demonstrated the efficacy and safety of SG in previously treated metastatic SCLC patients. 141 Among 50 patients who had received prior therapies, seven had PR and twenty‐one had SD, resulting in an overall ORR of 14% and DCR of 56%. The median PFS and OS were 3.7 and 7.5 months, respectively. The clinical benefit rate (≥4 months) was estimated to be 34%. Notably, PR, PFS, and clinical benefit rate with SG were all enhanced in the second‐line therapy for patients who were responsive to previous treatments. It is worth mentioning that Trop‐2 tumor staining was not a requirement for patient selection in this study. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events included neutropenia (34%), fatigue (13%), diarrhea (9%), and anemia (6%).

The results of the phase III TROPION‐Breast01 study will help define the role of Dato‐DXd in the metastatic HR+/HER2‐ breast cancer setting in patients who have progressed on, or are ineligible for, endocrine therapy and after chemotherapy. Previous studies on Dato‐DXd have shown promising antitumor activity and manageable safety profiles in patients with advanced NSCLC ( NCT03401385 ). 151 , 152 The ORR was 26%, with a median DoR of 10.5 months at the recommended dose of 6 mg/kg. Median PFS and OS were 6.9 and 11.4 months, respectively, regardless of TROP2 level. The clinical benefit and safety profile of Dato‐DXd have been evaluated in various clinical trials, supporting its potential benefit in patients with solid tumors such as NSCLC and breast cancer.

HER3

HER3/ErbB3 is a member of the EGFR/HER family of receptor tyrosine kinases, alongside EGFR (ErbB1 or HER1), HER2 (ErbB2), and HER4 (ErbB4). 153 Unlike other members, HER3 has minimal intracellular tyrosine kinase activity, which is significantly weaker than that of fully activated EGFR. 154 Its ligands, neuregulin 1 (NRG‐1) and neuregulin 2 (NRG‐2), trigger HER3 to form heterodimers with other receptors, such as EGFR and HER2, leading to downstream C‐terminal phosphorylation. 155 , 156 Additionally, HER3 can dimerize with non‐EGFR family receptors like the MET factor receptor and FGFR2. 157 , 158 Several tyrosine phosphorylation sites on HER3 directly bind to PI3K, thereby activating the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway crucial for cancer cell survival. HER3 also triggers other downstream pathways like MEK/mitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK), Jak/Stat, and c‐Src, promoting cell proliferation. 159 , 160 High HER3 expression has been linked to disease progression and reduced survival in cancer patients, making it a potential target for therapy. 161 , 162

Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3‐DXd) is an ADC developed by Daiichi Sanko targeting HER3. 163 , 164 The antibody component, patritumab (U3‐1287), specifically targets the extracellular domain of HER3, effectively inhibiting the formation of HER2/HER3 heterodimers. Both HER3‐DXd and DS‐8201 contain deruxtecan, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, attached to the antibody through a maleimide–GGFG junction at a cysteine site with a DAR of 8.0. 165 A stable tetrapeptide‐based cleavable linker is enzymatically cleaved in tumor lysosomes, releasing DXd that can enter cells via a bystander effect.

The phase I U31402 ‐A‐U102 study ( NCT03260491 ) assessed the efficacy of patritumab deruxtecan in patients with previously treated metastatic or unresectable NSCLC. 166 The dose‐escalation phase focused on patients with EGFR‐mutant disease who had progressed after osimertinib or those without T790M mutations who had progressed after erlotinib, gefitinib, or afatinib. The primary goals were to determine the safety, tolerability, and recommended dose for expansion. Results indicated that at a dose of 5.6 mg/kg, patritumab deruxtecan achieved a DCR of 72% in 57 patients who had received TKIs and platinum‐based chemotherapy, with a median PFS of 8.2 months. The agent also demonstrated efficacy in patients previously treated with osimertinib and platinum‐based chemotherapy, showing a confirmed ORR of 39% and a DCR of 68%, with a median PFS of 8.2 months. Notable responses were observed in patients with brain metastases, with a confirmed ORR of 32% and a median PFS of 8.2 months, as well as in those without brain metastases, with a confirmed ORR of 41% and a median PFS of 8.3 months. In terms of safety, all patients receiving patritumab deruxtecan at the 5.6 mg/kg dose experienced treatment‐emergent adverse effects, with a small percentage leading to treatment discontinuation or dose adjustments, but no fatal side effects were reported.

A phase II trial (HERTHENA‐Lung01, NCT05338970 ) assessed the effectiveness of patritumab deruxtecan in a group of heavily treated patients with advanced NSCLC who had previously received EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy and platinum‐based chemotherapy. 167 , 168 , 169 The primary objective, ORR, was determined to be 29.8% (95% CI, 23.9–36.2), with median PFS and OS of 5.5 and 11.9 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in treatment outcomes observed between patients who had previously received osimertinib and chemotherapy. In patients with nonirradiated brain metastases, approximately one‐third had their brain metastases controlled, with an ORR of 33.3% (95% CI, 17.3–52.8). A subsequent phase III study (HERTHENA‐Lung02, NCT05338970 ) is currently ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of patritumab deruxtecan in patients who have experienced disease progression after third‐generation EGFR TKI treatment. 170

Seventy‐seven patients with previously untreated HR+/HER2− breast cancer were assessed for efficacy in the SOLTI‐1805 TOT‐HER3 Study ( NCT04610528 ). 171 , 172 A significant change was noted in CelTIL score [= −0.8 × tumor cellularity (in %) + 1.3 × tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (in %)], with a median increase from baseline of 3.5 (interquartile range, −3.8 to 12.7; p = 0.003). An ORR of 45% was achieved, with responders showing a higher increase in CelTIL score compared with nonresponders (mean difference, +11.9 vs. +1.9). One hundred eighty‐two patients with HER3‐expressing advanced breast cancer received ≥1 dose of HER3‐DXd in a multicenter, phase I/II trial ( NCT02980341 ). 173 HER3‐low was defined as an IHC score of 1+, while HER3‐high was defined as an IHC score of 2+ or 3+. Objective responses were observed regardless of HER3 expression levels. Efficacy outcomes were reported for specific clinical subgroups: HR+/HER2− (ORR, 30.1%; median PFS, 7.4 months), TNBC (ORR, 22.6%; mPFS, 5.5 months), and HER2+ (ORR, 42.9%; mPFS, 11.0 months). HER3‐DXd exhibited comparable antitumor activity to SG in patients with advanced breast cancer, with a low rate of treatment‐related adverse reactions leading to discontinuation (9.9%).

EGFR

EGFR (HER1 or ERBB1) is a member of the ErbB family of tyrosine kinase receptors, playing essential roles in regulating cell proliferation, differentiation, migration, and survival. 174 , 175 Overexpression or mutation of EGFR has been linked to the development of various solid tumors, such as NSCLC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck, and colorectal cancer. 176 In addition to tyrosine kinase inhibitors for EGFR‐mutated non‐small cell lung carcinoma, ADCs targeting EGFR have recently emerged as promising therapeutics for patients with HER‐positive cancers. 177 , 178 , 179

ABT‐414 was created through the conjugation of MMAF, which inhibits microtubule assembly, to the interchain cysteines of the EGFR‐specific humanized antibody (ABT‐806) using a noncleavable maleimidocaproyl linker, resulting in an average DAR of approximately 4. 180 Results from a multicenter, phase I international study ( NCT01800695 ) demonstrated preliminary efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with EGFR‐overexpressing recurrent glioblastoma. Among the 66 patients, the ORR was 6.8%, with a 6‐month PFS rate of 28.8% and a 6‐month OS rate of 72.5%. 181 The most common adverse events reported were related to the eyes (91%), including blurred vision (65%), dry eye (29%), keratitis (27%), and photophobia (27%).

MRG003 is an EGFR‐targeted ADC composed of a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody linked to MMAE through a valine–citrulline linker. 182 This ADC can specifically bind to EGFR on tumor cells, enter the cells through endocytosis, travel to the lysosome, and release MMAE via protease degradation. MMAE inhibits tubulin polymerization, halting mitosis, ultimately leading to the inhibition of tumor cell growth and inducing cell death. In a first‐in‐human dose‐escalation study (CTR20180310) involving patients with relapsed/refractory solid tumors, the DCR was 100% for EGFR‐positive patients receiving doses of MRG003 at or above 1.5 mg/kg. 182 In a subset analysis from another phase I study ( NCT04868344 ) involving 39 patients with refractory advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck, colorectal cancer, and nasopharyngeal carcinoma, all patients were found to be EGFR positive. 183 The ORR was 20.5% with 8 PRs, while the DCR was 51.3% with 12 SDs. The median PFS for all patients was 2.8 months. Importantly, a positive association was observed between EGFR expression levels and the clinical outcomes observed with MRG003 treatment.

c‐Met

The cell‐surface receptor tyrosine kinase c‐Met undergoes a translation process resulting in a precursor protein that is posttranslationally modified into a three‐dimensional structure connected by disulfide bonds. 184 The mature c‐Met comprises a 50 kDa extracellular α chain and a 140 kDa transmembrane β chain. c‐Met, along with its sole ligand hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), plays a crucial role in various cellular processes such as proliferation, survival, invasion, tissue development, and organ regeneration. 185 , 186 HGF exists initially as an inactive precursor form that is activated by serine proteases to become mature. The active HGF ligands include α chains with N‐terminal and Kringle domains, as well as β chains resembling a serine protease domain. 187 The N‐terminal domain and K1 region of the HGF molecule bind strongly to c‐Met, creating a new binding site on the HGF‐β chain. This tight binding forms a complex between HGF and c‐Met, initiating signal transduction. The formation of this active complex leads to receptor polymerization, endocytosis, and phosphorylation of multiple tyrosine residues in the intracellular kinase domain, thereby activating various signaling pathways (JAK/STAT3, PI3K/Akt/NF‐κB, and Ras/Raf pathways) associated with tumor development, invasion, and metastasis. 188 , 189 , 190

Telisotuzumab vedotin (Teliso‐V) is a novel c‐Met–targeted ADC consisting of a humanized monoclonal antibody, ABT‐700, combined with MMAE through a cleavable valine–citrulline peptide linker (ABT‐700–vc‐MMAE). This combination results in approximately three molecules of monomethyl auristatin per antibody. Teliso‐V is capable of internalization and has been demonstrated to release MMAE, which subsequently binds to tubulin, leading to cell death by inhibiting mitosis. In essence, Teliso‐V can effectively deliver chemotherapy drugs specifically to the interior of cancer cells expressing c‐Met using antibodies, thereby directly targeting and eliminating cancer cells. Previous studies have indicated that Teliso‐V exhibits antitumor activity in MET‐amplified and c‐Met‐overexpressing tumors due to its specific and high‐affinity binding. 191

The initial human trial of Teliso‐V in patients with solid tumors was carried out by Strickler et al . in 2018 ( NCT02099058 ). 192 Among the 16 patients with c‐Met‐mutated NSCLC who received Teliso‐V (2.4–3.0 mg/kg), three patients (18.8%) achieved a PR with a median response duration of 4.8 months and a mPFS of 5.7 months. The majority of patients did not respond to Teliso‐V. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events associated with Teliso‐V were hypoalbuminemia, fatigue, neutropenia, and anemia (4% each). In a phase I study of Teliso‐V monotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC ( NCT02099058 ), forty c‐Met–positive patients (33 nonsquamous, six squamous, one mixed histology) were included in the final analysis. 193 Nine (23%) of these patients experienced objective responses with a mPFS of 5.2 months and a median response duration of 8.7 months. On January 4, 2022, the US FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to Teliso‐V for patients with advanced/metastatic EGFR wild‐type nonsquamous NSCLC who have disease progression during or after platinum‐based therapy and c‐Met overexpression, based on supporting data from the ongoing phase II LUMINOSITY clinical trial ( NCT03539536 ) presented at AACR in 2021. In the nonsquamous EGFR wild‐type subgroup of this trial ( n = 37), the ORR assessed by an independent center was 35.1%. The ORR of the c‐Met overexpression subgroup ( n = 13) was 53.8%, while that of the moderate c‐Met subgroup was 25.0%. The DoR in this cohort was 6.9 months. The EGFR mutation subgroup ( n = 30) had an ORR of 13.3% and showed remission only in patients with high c‐Met ( n = 22). However, in the squamous cell subgroup ( n = 21), the ORR was 14.3% with a DoR of 4.4 months. All responses observed were PRs.

In the Lung‐MAP S1400K study ( NCT03574753 ), Teliso‐V did not meet the expected response rate endpoint, achieving only 9% in patients with c‐Met‐positive squamous cell carcinoma. 194 However, in patients with dual c‐Met/EGFR mutations, Teliso‐V in combination with other TKIs (erlotinib) demonstrated promising antitumor activity and acceptable toxicity levels ( NCT02099058 ). The mPFS was 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.8–not reached) with an ORR of 32.1%. Among EGFR‐mutated patients, those with c‐Met overexpression ( n = 15) had an ORR of 52.6%. 195 This treatment approach is also under investigation in combination with osimertinib in the EGFR‐positive cohort ( NCT06093503 ).

Nectin‐4

Nectin‐4, a protein encoded by the poliovirus receptor‐related‐4 gene, is a member of the Nectins family (Nectins 1−4). It belongs to the Ca 2+ ‐independent immunoglobulin‐like protein group and plays a crucial role in the formation and maintenance of cell‐cell adherence and tight junctions through homophilic/heterophilic interactions. 196 , 197 , 198 While other Nectins are predominantly expressed in adult healthy tissues, Nectin‐4 is specifically enriched in normal embryonic and fetal tissues. 196 , 199 Notably, recent studies have shown that Nectin‐4 is overexpressed in various malignant tumors, contributing to disease progression and poor prognosis in cancers such as urothelial cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, TNBC, and bladder cancer. 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 The overexpression of Nectin‐4 has been linked to promoting tumor cell proliferation, differentiation, angiogenesis, migration, invasion, epithelial to mesenchymal transition, and DNA repair by activating the PI3K/Akt pathway. 209 , 210 , 211

Enfortumab vedotin, also known as ASG‐22CE, is a new type of fully humanized monoclonal ADC that is linked to the microtubule‐disrupting agent MMAE through a protease‐cleavable linker. 212 This drug is designed to specifically target cancer cells that express Nectin‐4, leading to internalization of the ADC–Nectin‐4 complex and subsequent cleavage of MMAE. This process ultimately disrupts the microtubule network within the cells, triggering apoptosis. 213

In the assessment of tolerability and antitumor activity, 201 heavily pretreated patients with Nectin‐4–expressing solid tumors (primary tumors of bladder, renal, pelvis, ureter, lung, ovary, colon, and appendix) were administered enfortumab vedotin in the EV‐101 clinical trial ( NCT02091999 ). 214 Among the 112 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma, the ORR was 43%, and the DoR was 7.4 months. The median OS was 12.3 months with a 1‐year OS rate of 51.8%. In December 2019, the US FDA granted accelerated approval to enfortumab vedotin for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that had progressed despite treatment with two previous therapies based on findings from the EV‐201 clinical trial ( NCT03219333 ). 215 , 216 Patients in this cohort had initially received platinum‐based doublet chemotherapy as the first‐line treatment, followed by PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors. Subsequently, enfortumab vedotin, instead of taxane agents like paclitaxel and docetaxel, was administered to all 125 participants as the third‐line therapy. Treatment with enfortumab vedotin effectively inhibited tumor growth in most patients, resulting in an ORR of 44% (55 out of 125, 95%CI, 35.1–53.2), a CR rate of 12% (15 out of 125), and a median DoR of 7.6 months (range: 0.95–11.3+).

In the cohort 2 of the EV‐201 clinical trial ( NCT03219333 ), researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin in cisplatin‐ineligible patients with urothelial carcinoma in the post‐immunotherapy setting. The primary endpoint was the ORR, and the majority of participants were elderly individuals with renal impairment. Results from Cohort 2 revealed that among patients treated with the ADC, the confirmed ORR was 52%, with a CR rate of 20%, and a median DoR of 10.9 months. The mPFS and median OS were 5.8 and 14.7 months, respectively. 216 This study presents potentially more effective and promising treatment options for a patient population with significant unmet needs. Various clinical trials investigating enfortumab vedotin in the treatment of urothelial cancer have gained momentum following the launch of EV‐201. In a phase III trial (EV‐301) of enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma, 307 participants were assigned to receive chemotherapy and 301 to receive enfortumab vedotin ( NCT03474107 ). 217 Median OS was prolonged with enfortumab vedotin compared with chemotherapy (12.88 vs. 8.97 months; HR = 0.70, p = 0.00142). Median PFS in the enfortumab vedotin group was also longer than that with chemotherapy (5.55 vs. 3.71 months; HR = 0.62, p < 0.00001). Both groups exhibited similar rates of treatment emergent adverse events and grade ≥3 events. Even after a median follow‐up of 2 years, the benefits in terms of PFS, OS, and overall response remained consistent. 218

In the EV‐302 clinical trials ( NCT04223856 ), the combination treatment of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab showed significantly better outcomes compared with chemotherapy for patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. 219 The median PFS and OS were longer in the enfortumab vedotin—pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (PFS: 12.5 vs. 6.3 months; HR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.38–0.54; p < 0.001; OS: 31.5 vs. 16.1 months; HR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38–0.58; p < 0.001, respectively).

CEACAM5

CEACAM5, also known as CEA or CD66e, is a member of the immunoglobulin supergene family of adhesion molecules. 220 It consists of a single N domain, six immunoglobulin constant‐like domains, and a glycosyl phosphatidylinositol anchor, allowing it to be located on the cell membrane and participate in intercellular adhesion and signaling. 221 , 222 , 223 While CEACAM5 shows limited expression in normal adult tissues, it is highly expressed in various cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, breast, pancreas, genitourinary system, and respiratory system. 224 , 225 , 226 , 227 This makes CEACAM5 a valuable prognostic marker and potential therapeutic target for CEA‐positive cancers. 228

Tusamitamab ravtansine (SAR408701) is a humanized antibody targeted towards CEACAM5. It is composed of the humanized monoclonal antibody (SAR408377) covalently linked to a cytotoxic maytansinoid DM4 payload, which is a microtubule‐destabilizing agent. This linkage is achieved through a cleavable N‐succinimidyl 4‐(2‐pyridyldithio) butanoate linker. 229 , 230 The DAR of tusamitamab ravtansine is 3.8.

The first‐in‐human dose‐escalation study of tusamitamab ravtansine included 31 patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors ( NCT02187848 ). 230 Out of all dose levels and cancer types, 29 participants were evaluated for tumor response, revealing 3 (9.7%) PR, 11 (35.5%) SD, and 13 (41.9%) PD. Additionally, two patients did not exhibit CR or disease progression. Among the two colorectal cancer patients who showed PRs, one had a KRASG12V mutation and both had 2+ membrane CEACAM5 expression in 100% of cancer cells. The third patient with a PR had stomach cancer but lacked CEACAM5 expression in a limited amount of tumor tissue. In the CARMEN‐LC03 clinical trial ( NCT04154956 ), tusamitamab ravtansine did not achieve the dual primary endpoint of PFS and OS as a monotherapy compared with docetaxel, as determined by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee. As a result, subsequent clinical trials involving tusamitamab ravtansine have been halted as of December 2023.

TF

TF, also known as coagulation factor III or CD142, is a transmembrane glycoprotein that plays a crucial role in initiating exogenous clotting pathways. Comprising 263 amino acid residues across extracellular, transmembrane, and intracellular regions, 231 , 232 TF kickstart the blood clotting cascade by binding to factor VII/VIIa. 232 Recent studies have shown that the interaction between TF and VIIa (FVIIa) can impact angiogenesis, cancer stem cell activity, tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis through signal transduction pathways. 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240

Tisotumab vedotin, a fully human TF‐specific monoclonal antibody linked to the cytotoxic MMAE payload, demonstrates promising antitumor activity. 241 Upon binding to TF, the antibody is internalized into tumor cells, where it is cleaved by lysosomal proteases, releasing MMAE and ultimately inducing cell division inhibition and apoptosis. In the InnovaTV 201 clinical trial ( NCT02001623 ), 27 patients with relapsed, advanced, or metastatic solid tumors underwent dose‐escalation of tisotumab vedotin, followed by 147 patients receiving a dose of 2.0 mg/kg in the dose‐expansion phase. 242 The confirmed ORR in the dose‐expansion phase was 15.6%, with all responses being partial. The median DoR was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.0–9.5) and the mPFS was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8–4.1). In the InnovaTV 204/GOG‐3023/ENGOT‐cx6 trials involving 101 patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer, tisotumab vedotin showed an ORR, with 24 patients achieving a confirmed response, including 7 CRs and 17 PRs. The most common treatment‐related adverse events included alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea (27%), fatigue (26%), and conjunctivitis (26%). Four deaths were reported, one of which was attributed to septic shock associated with the drug. Following the positive outcomes of the InnovaTV 201 and InnovaTV 204 trials, tisotumab vedotin received accelerated approval from the US FDA for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. 243 Results from the innovaTV 205/GOG‐3024/ENGOT‐cx8 study ( NCT03786081 ) showed that tisotumab vedotin in combination with bevacizumab, carboplatin, or pembrolizumab had tolerable safety profiles and promising antitumor effects in both treatment‐naive and pretreated recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients. In the group treated with tisotumab vedotin plus carboplatin as first‐line therapy ( n = 32), the ORR was 56.3%, the DCR was 93.8%, and the clinical benefit rate was 81.3%. The median DoR was 8.6 months (95% CI, 4.2–11.5). The mPFS was 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.0–11.1) and mOS was not reached at data cutoff (death rate: 42.4%). Among treatment‐naive patients who received tisotumab vedotin and pembrolizumab ( n = 31), the ORR was 41.9%, the DCR was 83.9%, and the clinical benefit rate was 74.2%. Median DoR and OS were not reached, while median PFS was 5.3 months (95% CI, 4.0–12.2). For patients who underwent 2nd or 3rd line therapy with tisotumab vedotin + pembrolizumab ( n = 32), the ORR was 35.3%, the DCR was 73.5%, and the clinical benefit rate was 47.1%. The median DoR was 14.1 months (95% CI, 4.2–not reached). Median PFS and OS were 5.6 months (95% CI, 2.7–14.2) and 15.3 months (95% CI, 9.9–not reached; 21 deaths), respectively.

FRα

FRα), also known as FOLR1 or folate‐binding protein, is a member of the folate receptor family that binds to folate with high affinity and can transport folic acid through receptor‐mediated endocytosis. 244 , 245 FRα is typically low in normal tissues but highly expressed in various solid tumors, such as ovarian cancer (76–89%), TNBC (35–68%), endometrial cancer (20–50%), and lung cancer (75–90%). 246 Research indicates that the FRα‐mediated signaling pathway plays a crucial role in tumorigenesis, involving processes like DNA repair, DNA synthesis, cell proliferation, and intracellular signaling. Inhibiting FRα may directly impede tumor growth, 247 , 248 , 249 making it a promising target for tumor diagnosis and treatment. 246 , 250

MORAb‐202 is the first ADC designed to target FRα with a DAR of 4.0. This compound is created by linking an anti‐FRα monoclonal antibody to eribulin through an enzyme‐cleavable linker. 251 Eribulin, known as a microtubule inhibitor, disrupts microtubule homeostasis, ultimately inhibiting cell division and effectively contributing to the destruction of cancer cells.

In the initial phase I trial of MORAb‐202 in patients with advanced solid tumors that are positive for FRα ( NCT03386942 ), 45% of patients experienced treatment‐related adverse events of leukopenia and neutropenia. 252 Additionally, one patient (0.9 mg/kg) experienced two grade 3 events of elevated serum alanine aminotransferase and γ‐glutamyl transferase levels. Out of the 22 patients enrolled, one patient with ovarian cancer achieved CR, nine patients (41%) had PR, eight patients (36%) had SD, and the remaining four patients (18%) showed disease progression. MORAb‐202 also demonstrated significant inhibition of the growth of FRα‐expressing breast cancer cell lines. 253 These promising results with MORAb‐202 in FRα‐positive solid tumors have led to further investigations into its clinical utility.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine (IMGN853) is an ADC primarily used in the treatment of certain types of cancer, especially in ovarian cancer patients with high FRα expression. 254 The drug is composed of a FRα‐binding antibody (mirvetuximab), a lysable linker, and the maytansinoid payload DM4 (soravtansine). Mirvetuximab soravtansine binds selectively to FRα with high affinity and is then internalized through antigen‐mediated endocytosis. Once inside FRa‐expressing tumor cells, DM4 is released through proteolytic cleavage. DM4 disrupts the intracellular microtubule network, causing cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. 255 Due to its electroneutral and lipophilic characteristics, DM4 can diffuse across cell membranes and induce cell death in neighboring antigen‐negative cells, a phenomenon known as the “bystander effect.” This property is crucial for mirvetuximab soravtansine as it enables a cytotoxic effect even in cells lacking FRα expression on their surface. 256

This phase I expansion cohort study examined the safety and clinical effectiveness of mirvetuximab soravtansine in forty‐six heavily pre‐treated patients with FRα‐positive and platinum‐resistant ovarian cancer ( NCT01609556 ). 257 The most common adverse events were diarrhea (44%), blurred vision (41%), nausea (37%), and fatigue (30%), all of which were generally mild (≤grade 2). Grade 3 hypotension and fatigue were reported in two patients each (4%). The confirmed ORR was 26%, with one CR and 11 PRs. The mPFS was 4.8 months (95% CI, 3.9–5.7) regardless of FRα expression. Interestingly, patients with <4 prior lines of therapy had a mPFS of 6.7 months (95% CI, 3.9–8.7) and an ORR of 39%. Following the promising preliminary data, an open‐label randomized controlled phase III trial (FORWARD I) was initiated ( NCT02631876 ). 258 This trial enrolled patients ( n = 366) with <4 prior lines of therapy and FRα‐positive tumors (medium and high expression). Patients were randomly assigned to receive mirvetuximab soravtansine at 6 mg/kg or the physician's choice of treatment (including paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan). While all secondary endpoints, such as ORR (22 vs. 12%), CA125 response (51 vs. 27%), post‐PFS (median 10.0 vs. 8.4 months), and quality of life (32 vs. 14%), showed significant improvements, the primary endpoint of PFS did not meet expectations. 258

While the results from FORWARD I were disappointing, the HRs for PFS and OS indicated potential benefits of mirvetuximab soravtansine in the high FRα subgroup, although without statistical significance. 258 Two additional studies were conducted focusing on mirvetuximab soravtansine in platinum‐resistant cancer patients with high FRα levels. The SORAYA study ( NCT04296890 ), which exclusively enrolled FRα‐high patients, consisted of 106 individuals with high‐grade serous ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian tube cancer. Among these patients, 51% had undergone three prior lines of therapy, and 48% had received a prior poly ADP‐ribose polymerase inhibitor. 254 All participants had previously received bevacizumab and subsequently received single‐agent mirvetuximab soravtansine at a dose of 6 mg/kg. Five patients achieved CRs, and 29 achieved PRs, resulting in a confirmed ORR of 32.4% and a DCR of 51.4%. The majority of patients (71.4%) experienced tumor reduction. The mPFS was 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.8–6.9), and the median OS was 13.8 months (95% CI, 12.0–not reached). Subsequently, mirvetuximab soravtansine was approved by the US FDA for FRα‐positive platinum‐resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer patients who had received 1–3 prior systemic therapies. 254

In the phase III MIRASOL trial ( NCT04209855 ), researchers compared the efficacy of mirvetuximab soravtansine versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum‐resistant, advanced high‐grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers expressing high FRα. 259 Out of the 453 patients enrolled, 14% had one prior line of therapy, 39% had two prior lines, and 47% had three prior lines. A majority of patients had received prior treatment with bevacizumab (62%) and PARP inhibitors (55%). The primary endpoint of mPFS was 5.62 months (95% CI, 4.34–5.95) in the mirvetuximab soravtansine group compared with 3.98 months (95% CI, 2.86–4.47) in the chemotherapy group, with ORR of 42 and 16%, respectively (both p < 0.001). The mOS was longer in the mirvetuximab soravtansine group at 16.4 months compared with 12.7 months in the chemotherapy group (HR, 0.67, p = 0.0046).

In the recent multicohort FORWARD II ( NCT02606305 ) study, data indicated that the ORR of mirvetuximab soravtansine combined with bevacizumab in the platinum‐sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer subgroup was 44%, with 5 CRs and 36 PRs. 260 , 261 The median DoR and PFS were 9.7 months (95% CI, 6.9–14.1) and 8.2 months (95% CI, 6.8–10.0), respectively. Encouraging results were seen across patients regardless of FRα expression levels or prior bevacizumab treatment.

In the context of platinum‐sensitive ovarian cancer, several recent clinical trials (including the PICCOLO trial, NCT05041257 ; MIROVA trial, NCT04274426 ; Study‐420, NCT04606914 ; and GLORIOSA trial, NCT05445778 ) have investigated the efficacy of mirvetuximab soravtansine. 262 The results from the FORWARD II trial ( NCT02606305 ) indicated that eighteen women with relapsed FRα‐positive and platinum‐sensitive ovarian cancer were treated with carboplatin in combination with mirvetuximab soravtansine. 263 Following carboplatin discontinuation, thirteen patients continued with mirvetuximab soravtansine maintenance, resulting in three complete and nine PRs. The ORR was 71%, with a mPFS of 15 months.

Delta‐like protein 3 (DLL3)

DLL3 is a single transmembrane protein that is anchored to the cell surface and belongs to the Notch ligand family. The human DLL3 protein consists of 619 amino acids and its complete structure includes a DSL domain, an intracellular domain, and six EGF‐like repeat domains. This ligand, DLL3, exerts its biological functions either directly or indirectly by binding to the Notch receptor. Unlike other Notch ligands, DLL3 has an inhibitory effect on the Notch pathway. 264 Through interactions with Notch receptors, DLL3 inhibits the activation of the Notch signaling pathway. It can also bind to DLL1 and Notch1 receptors to inhibit modification and promote the degradation of Notch1 receptor, thus inhibiting the activation and upregulation of the Notch signaling pathway. 265 , 266 Research has shown that DLL3 is primarily expressed in neuroendocrine tumors, such as SCLC, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC), gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor, small cell bladder cancer, glioblastoma multiforme, metastatic castrated prostate cancer, lung neuroendocrine tumor, among others. 267 , 268 , 269 , 270 , 271 Particularly, more than 80% of SCLC cases exhibit positive expression of DLL3, leading to enhanced migration and invasion of SCLC cells. 272 However, DLL3 is rarely expressed in normal healthy tissues, making it a promising target for lung cancer therapies. 273

Rovalpituzumab tesirine (Rova‐T, S16LD6.5) is a novel ADC that targets DLL3, a protein found in certain tumor cells. This ADC is made up of a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, a cytotoxic drug called pyrrole benzodiazepine (PBD) (D6.5), and a protease‐cleavable connector. 274 , 275 The antibody component specifically recognizes DLL3, allowing the chemotherapy drug to be delivered directly into the cell, causing DNA damage and inhibiting tumor cell growth. 275 In a phase I study ( NCT01901653 ) involving patients with SCLC and LCNEC, Rova‐T showed promising antitumor activity with manageable side effects. 276 Among the patients who received Rova‐T, the ORR was 18% and the DCR was 68%. Notably, patients with positive DLL3 had a higher response rate, with an ORR of 38% for those who received the optimal dose; among patients who received the optimal dose and were positive for DLL3, the ORR was as high as 55%, and the DCR was as high as 91%. 276 However, in a subsequent phase II TRINITY study for SCLC patients with multiple prior treatments ( NCT02674568 ), the ORR was lower at 12.4% in all participants, 14.3% with ≥25% of tumor cells positive for DLL3, and 13.2% with ≥75% of tumor cells positive for DLL3, respectively. 277 The initial phase I study did not yield the desired effect for Rova‐T. The phase II MERU Study aimed to evaluate Rova‐T's efficacy as maintenance therapy for patients with extensive‐stage–SCLC following platinum‐based chemotherapy. While patients receiving Rova‐T had a longer mPFS compared with those on placebo (4.0 vs. 1.4 months, HR = 0.48, p < 0.001), there was no significant difference in mOS between the Rova‐T and placebo groups (8.5 vs. 9.8 months, HR = 1.07, p = 0.537).

The clinical trial did not achieve its primary endpoint and was stopped prematurely. Results from the phase III TAHOE study indicated that Rova‐T had a lower OS but higher incidence of side effects (such as serosal effusions, photosensitivity reaction, and peripheral edema) compared with topotecan as a second‐line therapy in patients with DLL3‐high SCLC ( NCT03061812 ). 278 The median OS (primary endpoint) and PFS were 6.3 months (95% CI, 5.6–7.3) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.9–3.6) in the Rova‐T group, and 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.7–10.1) and 4.3 months (95% CI, 3.8–5.4) in the topotecan group, respectively. Additionally, the ORR was only 15% (42 out of 287) in the Rova‐T group, compared with 21% (27 out of 129) in the topotecan group. 278

B7‐H3

B7‐H3, also known as CD276 or B7RP‐2, is a transmembrane glycoprotein with type I structure, consisting of extracellular, transmembrane, and short intracellular domains. 279 , 280 Initially identified for its ability to stimulate T cell responses and IFN‐γ production, recent studies suggest that B7‐H3 predominantly acts as an immune cosuppressor, aiding tumor cells in evading immune surveillance. 279 , 281 It is prominently expressed in various solid tumors, while being minimally present in normal tissues. Consequently, elevated levels of B7‐H3 are correlated with a poorer prognosis in cancer patients. 281 , 282

HS‐20093 is an ADC specifically targeting tumors with high B7‐H3 expression. It consists of a fully human anti‐B7‐H3 monoclonal antibody of the IgG1 subtype linked to a small molecule toxin topoisomerase I inhibitor through a protease‐cleavable linker. 283 , 284 In a study involving 40 patients with NSCLC, SCLC, sarcoma, and other advanced solid tumors who were treated with varying doses of HS‐20093, preliminary efficacy results showed 14 PRs, with nine confirmed PRs and five additional PRs pending confirmation irrespective of B7‐H3 levels ( NCT05276609 ). Furthermore, SD was observed in 19 additional patients. Treatment‐emerged adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in all enrolled patients, with the most common TEAEs occurring in over 30% of patients including leukopenia, neutropenia, anemia, pyrexia, nausea, thrombocytopenia, hypoalbuminemia, vomiting, lymphopenia, infusion‐related reactions, and fatigue. Among a subset of nine SCLC patients, seven PRs were observed, resulting in a response rate of 77.8% with a median depth of response of 50.5%. 283 These findings suggest that HS‐20093 could be a promising candidate drug for patients with B7‐H3‐expressing solid tumors.

In a phase I dose‐escalation study ( NCT04145622 ), ifinatamab deruxtecan (formerly known as DS‐7300a) showed promising results in 127 patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, squamous cell lung cancer, and SCLC. 285 Adverse events were reported in 98% of patients, with nausea (61%), infusion‐related reactions (35%), and vomiting (31%) being the most common. Notably, one patient experienced a grade 5 interstitial lung disease at a dose of 16 mg/kg. The recommended dose of DS‐7300a was 12 mg/kg every 3 weeks, with an ORR of 33% and a DCR of 71.4% across all tumor types. Specifically, responses were observed in 78% (seven out of nine) of SCLC cases, 40% (two out of five) of squamous cell NSCLC cases, and 38% (16 out of 42) of mCRPC cases. 286 The most common adverse events reported were nausea (65.5%), infusion reactions (34.5%), and fatigue (34.5%). 284

Vobramitamab duocarmazine, formerly known as MGC018, is an ADC that targets B7‐H3. It consists of valine–citrulline–seco duocarmycin hydroxybenzamide azaindole as the cleavable linker‐duocarmycin payload, conjugated to an anti‐B7‐H3 humanized monoclonal antibody through reduced interchain disulfides, with an average DAR of 2.7. 287 In a phase I dose escalation study ( NCT03729596 ) involving 29 patients with various tumor types, all participants experienced adverse events, with common ones being anemia, neutropenia, fatigue, hyperpigmentation, infusion‐related reactions, nausea, and palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia. 288 Among three melanoma patients, some showed a 20% or greater reduction in target lesion size, although without achieving PRs. In another phase I study ( NCT03761017 ), four patients with measurable mCRPC experienced reductions in target lesions, and half of the patients had a more than 50% reduction in prostate‐specific antigen levels. 289 One melanoma patient achieved a PR. Most patients (43 out of 49) experienced adverse events. The results of vobramitamab duocarmazine so far have shown mild toxicities and initial signs of clinical antitumor activity in solid tumors.

CD19

B lymphocyte antigen CD19, also known as B lymphocyte surface antigen B4, T cell surface antigen Leu‐12 and CVID3, is a transmembrane protein encoded by the CD19 gene. In humans, CD19 is expressed in all B lineage cells except plasma cells and follicular dendritic cells. CD19 plays dual roles in human B cells, serving as an adaptor protein to recruit cytoplasmic signaling proteins to the membrane and working within the CD19/CD21 complex to lower the threshold of the B‐cell receptor signaling pathway. 290 Due to its presence in all B cells, CD19 serves as a biomarker for B lymphocyte development, lymphoma diagnosis, and can be targeted therapeutically for hematological malignancies. Loncastuximab tesirine (ADCT‐402) is a CD19‐directed ADC consisting of an anti‐CD19 monoclonal antibody randomly linked to a PBD dimer cytotoxic alkylating agent (SG3199) through a cathepsin‐cleavable valine‐alanine linker. 291 Once internalized, the PBD binds irreversibly to CD19, releasing conjugates within tumor cells. These conjugates bind to DNA, cross‐linking the DNA double strands, inhibiting DNA strand separation, and ultimately leading to tumor cell death.

The safety and initial antitumor efficacy of loncastuximab tesirine were first documented in 2019 among patients with relapsed or refractory B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma ( NCT02669017 ). 292 , 293 Nearly all patients (98.9%) experienced treatment‐related adverse events, with the most common being hematologic abnormalities (such as decreased platelet and neutrophil counts), fatigue, edema, liver test abnormalities, nausea, rash, and dyspnea (reported in ≥20% of patients). Among evaluable patients, the ORR was 59.4% at doses ≥120 µg/kg, with a CR rate of 40.6% and a PR rate of 18.8%. The median DoR, PFS, and OS at all doses were 4.8, 5.5, and 11.6 months, respectively. In the pivotal phase II LOTIS‐2 study ( NCT03589469 ), heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with loncastuximab tesirine had a mOS of 9.5 months and a mPFS of 4.9 months at the time of data cutoff. 294 , 295 48.3% of the 145 patients achieved an objective response, with 24.8% achieving CRs. Patients who achieved CR had not reached median PFS or OS, with 24‐month OS and PFS rates of 68.2 and 72.5%, respectively. The US FDA has expedited the approval of loncastuximab tesirine for the management of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B‐cell lymphoma who have undergone two or more lines of systemic treatments, including those with other diffuse tumors of unknown origin, large B‐cell lymphoma, large B‐cell lymphoma originating from low‐grade lymphoma, and high‐grade lymphoma. 296

CD22

CD22, a type I transmembrane glycoprotein and member of the sialic acid‐binding immunoglobulin‐like lectin family, 297 acts as an inhibitory coreceptor of the B cell receptor (BCR) to negatively regulate B cell activation signals. 298 Specifically binding to glycoprotein ligands containing α‐2,6‐linked sialic acid, CD22 can activate BCR, phosphorylate tyrosine in the immunoreceptor tyrosine inhibitory motif within its cytoplasmic region, trigger downstream signaling molecules, inhibit calcium ion influx, and ultimately weaken BCR signals. 299 , 300 , 301 Additionally, CD22 plays a role in the homing process of B cells. 302 Due to its relatively specific expression on the surface of B cells, CD22 has emerged as a promising target for regulating B cell immunity and treating certain B cell tumors. 303

Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is a human CD22‐directed ADC consisting of a humanized anti‐CD22 antibody linked to the potent cytotoxic agent calicheamicin. 304 InO can bind to CD22‐expressing tumor cells, leading to internalization of the ADC‐CD22 complex. Subsequently, hydrolysis of the covalent bond of N‐acetyl‐γ‐kazimycin diformylhydrazide occurs, inducing double‐strand DNA breakage and cell death. 305 , 306 Initial studies in 2010 showed promising antitumor activities of InO in CD22‐positive B‐cell non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma, with the main toxicity being thrombocytopenia ( NCT00073749 ). The mPFS was 317 days for follicular non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma patients and 49 days for diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma patients. 307 , 308 Final results from the randomized phase III INO‐VATE study ( NCT01564784 ) revealed a significantly higher CR or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) rate with InO compared with standard‐of‐care chemotherapy (73.8 vs. 30.9%; p < 0.0001). 309 , 310 , 311 , 312 The median OS was 7.7 months with InO and 6.2 months with chemotherapy, with 2‐year OS rates of 22.8 and 10.0%, respectively (HR, 0.75; 97.5% CI, 0.57–0.99; p = 0.0105). A higher percentage of patients treated with InO proceeded directly to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after achieving CR/CRi compared with those receiving chemotherapy (39.6 vs. 10.5%; p < 0.0001). The most common adverse events in both groups were hematologic. In addition to monotherapy, combination treatments of InO with chemotherapy have shown promise in patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia or B‐cell lymphoma. Combining InO with low‐intensity chemotherapy, with or without blinatumomab, demonstrated positive effects on PFS in older patients with B‐cell acute lymphocytic leukemia ( NCT01371630 ). 313 The 2‐year PFS and 5‐year PFS rates were 58.2% (95% CI, 46.7–68.2) and 44.0% (31.2–54.3), respectively in older patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome‐negative B‐cell acute lymphocytic leukemia. 313 The most common grade 3−4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (78%) and febrile neutropenia (32%). A total of 46 patients (78%) responded to treatment, with 35 of them (59%) achieving CRs. The overall minimal residual disease negativity rate among responders was 82%. 314 However, a study comparing InO plus rituximab to rituximab plus bendamustine or gemcitabine in patients with relapsed/refractory B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma showed no superiority of InO plus rituximab based on the results of a, open‐label, phase III study ( NCT01232556 ). 315 Similarly, the combination of InO and rituximab as a salvage regimen for transplant‐eligible patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma yielded lower than expected favorable outcomes. 316 The 1‐year and 2‐year PFS rates for all enrolled patients were only 28.9 and 25.3%, respectively, with a median PFS of 3.0 months.

CD30

CD30 (TNFRSF8) is a membrane protein closely associated with cell proliferation and death. 317 When CD30 molecules are stimulated, they undergo receptor trimerization and signal transduction, activating the nuclear factor‐κB (NF‐κB) pathway. Additionally, CD30 is involved in the MAPK pathway, specifically ERK1 and ERK2, which promote antiapoptotic and pro‐survival effects in tumor cells. 318 Furthermore, there appears to be a positive feedback loop between the MAPK/ERK pathway and NF‐κB, which not only contributes to cell survival but also upregulates CD30 expression. 319 , 320 There seems to be a positive feedback loop between the MAPK/ERK pathway and NF‐κB, enhancing cell survival and increasing CD30 expression. This indicates that CD30 expression in tumor cells may promote proliferation and inhibit cell death. In healthy cells, CD30 is typically not expressed or is expressed at low levels on activated T cells and B cells. Conversely, CD30 is often highly expressed on the surface of Hodgkin lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma cells. 321 , 322 , 323 , 324 This expression pattern aligns with the ideal target antigen characteristics, showing high consistency on target cells and low expression in normal tissues. 325 Such distinct expression patterns can help minimize off‐target toxicity in nontumor tissues.

The ADC of brentuximab vedotin is composed of an anti‐CD30 monoclonal antibody, a protease‐cleavable linker, and MMAE, with a DAR of 4. 326 Brentuximab demonstrates stability in the bloodstream. Upon binding to the CD30 receptor on cancer cells, it is endocytosed, releasing MMAE within the cancer cells. MMAE disrupts the microtubule network in cancer cells, halting the mitotic cycle and triggering cell apoptosis. 327 Furthermore, MMAE can also enter neighboring cancer cells through a bystander effect, contributing to the elimination of other cancer cells. 328 The US FDA has granted accelerated approval for the use of this CD30 monoclonal antibody in treating relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma. 329

Brentuximab vedotin demonstrated manageable toxic effects and elicited objective responses in a majority of patients with relapsed or refractory CD30‐positive lymphomas during the initial phase I trial ( NCT00430846 ). 330 Among the 44 evaluable patients, 17 showed objective responses, including 11 CRs, 6 PRs, and 19 SDs. The median PFS was estimated to be 5.9 months, with a DoR of 17.3 months for the 17 patients who exhibited objective responses (ranging from 0.6 to >19.5 months). The most common side effects, mostly grade 1 or 2, included fatigue (16, 36%), pyrexia (15, 33%), peripheral neuropathy, nausea, diarrhea, neutropenia, and peripheral neuropathy (10, 22% each). In the phase III ECHELON‐1 study ( NCT01712490 ), treatment‐naive patients with stage III–IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) received brentuximab vedotin in combination with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) or bleomycin plus AVD (ABVD) as first‐line therapy. 331 With a median follow‐up of 24.9 months, the primary endpoint of PFS was significantly higher in the A+AVD group compared with the ABVD group (HR, 0.77, p = 0.03). The 2‐year PFS rates were 82.1% (95% CI, 78.7–85.0%) and 77.2% (95% CI, 73.7–80.4%) in the respective groups. All secondary efficacy endpoints (OS, CR rate, ORR, and DoR rate) favored the A+AVD regimen. As a result, the combination of brentuximab vedotin with AVD was recommended as a first‐line treatment for cHL due to its superior efficacy and lower incidence of severe toxicity in the ECHELON‐1 study. 331 Furthermore, the AETHERA clinical trial ( NCT01100502 ) confirmed the role of brentuximab vedotin as a consolidative treatment option for adult cHL patients at high risk of relapse or progression after autologous hematopoietic stem‐cell transplantation. 332 , 333 , 334 During the 5‐year follow‐up period, patients treated with brentuximab vedotin demonstrated a durable PFS benefit, with a 5‐year PFS rate of 59% (95% CI, 51–66) compared with 41% (95% CI, 33–49) in the placebo group (HR = 0.521). Furthermore, patients with at least two risk factors in the brentuximab vedotin group exhibited significantly higher PFS rates at 5 years when compared with patients in the control arm (HR, 0.424; 95% CI, 0.302–0.596).

The ECHELON‐2 ( NCT01777152 ) study is the largest prospective, randomized, double‐blind trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of standard CHOP regimen with alternatives containing CD30‐targeted agents (brentuximab vedotin plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone, A+CHP) as initial treatment for sALCL and other CD30‐positive peripheral T‐cell lymphomas. 335 , 336 In the 5‐year update of ECHELON‐2, the 5‐year PFS and OS rates with A+CHP were 51.4% (95% CI, 42.8–59.4%) and 70.1% (95% CI, 63.3–75.9%), respectively, compared with 43.0% (95% CI, 35.8–50.0%) and 61.0% (95% CI, 54.0–67.3%) with CHOP. The safety profile was similar in both groups, with manageable hematologic toxicity being the primary concern. Peripheral neuropathy was reported in 67% of cases but was generally tolerable. The US FDA has approved the combination of brentuximab vedotin and CHP chemotherapy regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone) for the frontline treatment of sALCL or other CD30‐positive PTCL in adults. 337

Adult patients with primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (C‐ALCL) or CD30‐expressing mycosis fungoides who had previously undergone systemic therapy were eligible to receive brentuximab vedotin based on the findings of the ALCANZA trial ( NCT01578499 ). 338 , 339 , 340 , 341 The study demonstrated a significantly higher ORR lasting ≥4 months (ORR4; primary endpoint) with brentuximab vedotin compared with physician's choice (54.7 vs. 12.5%, p < 0.001). The median PFS in the brentuximab vedotin group was estimated to be 16.7 months, significantly longer than the physician's choice group (3.5 months, p < 0.001), with CR rates of 17.2 and 1.6%, respectively. Furthermore, 86% of patients experiencing any grade of peripheral neuropathy achieved complete remission (59.1%) or an improvement to grade 1 or 2 (27.3%) with brentuximab vedotin.

CD33

CD33 is a type I transmembrane glycoprotein with a molecular weight of 67 kDa that belongs to the Siglec family. 342 , 343 This molecule transmits inhibitory signals to the cell through its ITIM sequence, which blocks intracellular signaling pathways after cross‐linking or ligand binding. 344 , 345 CD33, known as a myeloid differentiation antigen, is predominantly found in myeloid blood cells, particularly in AML. Importantly, it is not expressed on the surface of normal hematopoietic stem cells and other mature cells, making CD33 a promising target for the treatment of myeloid leukemia. 346 , 347

GO, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody (hp67.6) linked to a potent cytotoxic antitumor antibiotic N‐acetylcalicheamicin (CLM), targets the antigen CD33. 348 , 349 The antibody binds specifically to the target antigen CD33, forming an antigen‐antibody complex that triggers endocytosis. This complex enters the cell via vesicles formed during endocytosis. 350 The vesicles then fuse with intracellular lysosomes, allowing the antibodies to enter. In the acidic environment of the lysosomes, the linker connecting the antibody to the toxin breaks down, releasing CLM. CLM then enters the nucleus, causing the DNA double helix to break and inducing apoptosis in tumor cells. 351 The US FDA approved GO in 2000 as the first ADC molecule targeting CD33 for treating patients with AML. 352 A clinical response rate of 26% was observed in leukemias treated with GO. 353 Administering GO to patients with CD33‐positive AML in first relapse led to complete remissions with a favorable safety profile. 4 , 353 The overall rate of remission was 30%, with 16% achieving complete remission and 13% achieving remission with incomplete platelet recovery. 4

However, subsequent studies revealed that GO did not significantly enhance patient survival compared with traditional chemotherapy drugs and even led to higher rates of lethal hepatic toxicity. The phase III SWOG 106 study demonstrated a higher incidence of severe fatal liver injury in the GO treatment group (death rate, 5.7 vs. 1.4%) without showing a clear survival benefit. 354 , 355 These compelling results led to the early termination of the study, and the drug was subsequently withdrawn in 2010. Following dosage adjustments and extensive clinical trials, GO was reapproved by the US FDA in 2017 for newly diagnosed and relapsed refractory CD33‐positive AML patients. 356 , 357 In the phase III ALFA‐0701 trial ( NCT 00927498 ), the addition of a reduced and fractionated dose of GO to standard chemotherapy regimens significantly improved event‐free survival (EFS) in adults with AML. The median EFS was 17.3 months (95%CI, 13.4–30.0) in the GO arm, compared with 9.5 months (8.1–12.0) in the standard 3+7 daunorubicin and cytarabine induction regimen (HR, 0.56, 95%CI, 0.42–0.76; p = 0.0002). This represented a 44% reduction in the risk of an event for patients in the GO group. Although a longer OS was observed in the GO arm, this difference was not statistically significant (27.5 vs. 21.8 months, p = 0.16). Importantly, it appeared that low CD33 expression (<30% of blasts positive) did not impact the EFS benefit with GO. The incidence of severe (grade ≥3) infection was similar in both treatment arms (77%). The number of patient deaths was also not significantly different between the GO arm (6; 4.6%) and the control arm (5; 3.6%). Furthermore, the addition of GO to chemotherapy demonstrated potential to improve EFS for children and adolescents with AML by reducing the risk of relapse, as evidenced by the phase III Children's Oncology Group trial AAML0531 ( NCT00372593 ). 358 The EFS was significantly enhanced with the addition of GO (3‐year EFS: 53.1 vs. 46.9%; HR: 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70–0.99; p = 0.04), although there was no significant OS benefit observed (3‐year rate: 69.4 vs. 65.4%; p = 0.39). 358

CD79B

CD79B, along with CD79A, is crucial in initiating the signal transduction cascade activated by BCR. 359 , 360 This pivotal role leads to the internalization of the complex, subsequent transport to endosomes, and eventual antigen presentation. 361 CD79B may enhance the phosphorylation of CD79A by recruiting kinases that phosphorylate CD79A or by conjugating proteins that bind to CD79A, thereby protecting it from dephosphorylation. Additionally, CD79B forms a heterodimer with the α chain to create a disulfide‐bonded complex. 362 Furthermore, CD79B interacts with Lyn to further enhance its regulatory function in B cell signaling. 363 , 364 , 365 As a signaling component of the B‐cell antigen receptor complex, CD79B is highly specific to the B‐cell lineage and is significantly expressed in various B‐cell lymphomas (including >95% DLBCL). 366 , 367 Preclinical studies have shown that targeting CD79B as a binding site is more effective than targeting CD79A. 368 Consequently, CD79B has emerged as an ideal therapeutic target to harness the potential of ADC. 369

Polatuzumab vedotin (Polivy) is a novel anti‐CD79B ADC that disrupts B cell division through a combination of a humanized anti‐CD79b monoclonal antibody, cytotoxic MMAE component, and a cleavable linker with a DAR of 3−4. 370 , 371 The antibody targets CD79B, which is overexpressed in DLBCL patients. 368 Upon binding to CD79B, Polivy is internalized, leading to linker cleavage by lysosomal proteases and subsequent release of MMAE. MMAE then disrupts the microtubule network structure by binding to tubulin, ultimately inhibiting cell division and triggering apoptosis. 370 , 372 In June 2019, the US FDA granted accelerated approval to Polivy in combination with bendamustine plus rituximab for adults with DLBCL who have undergone second‐line or subsequent treatments. 370

In a phase I study ( NCT01290549 ), Polivy demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability in patients with relapsed or refractory B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma but not in those with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 373 The accelerated approval of Polivy was based on an open‐label, multicenter, randomized phase II clinical study (GO29365, NCT02257567 ) that included 80 relapsed/refractory DLBCL patients who had received at least one prior treatment and were not suitable for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. 374 , 375 These patients were randomly assigned to receive standard treatment with bendamustine‐rituximab or bendamustine‐rituximab plus Polivy. The primary endpoint of CR was 17.5% in the standard therapy group and 40% in the Polivy group ( p = 0.026). Moreover, the ORR in the Polivy arm was 63%, significantly higher than the 25% in the control group. Among patients in the Polivy group who achieved PRs or CRs, 64% experienced lasting responses for more than 6 months, with 48% maintaining remission for over 1 year. In contrast, these numbers were only 3 and 2% in the control group. Treatment with Polivy resulted in substantially higher response rates compared with standard therapy. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 60% of subjects, predominantly due to infections. The most common adverse reactions associated with Polivy included neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and pyrexia.

Moreover, the combination of Polivy plus R‐CHP has shown to reduce the risk of disease relapse, progression, or mortality in comparison with treatment with R‐CHOP among patients with previously untreated intermediate‐risk or high‐risk DLBCL, as demonstrated in the POLARIX trials ( NCT03274492 ). 376 The data analysis at the time of cutoff indicated a significantly lower risk of progression, relapse, or death in the pola‐R‐CHP group when compared with the R‐CHOP group (stratified HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.95; p = 0.02). The primary endpoint of the 2‐year PFS rate with Polivy plus R‐CHP was 76.7% (95% CI, 72.7–80.8), which was notably higher than the 70.2% (95% CI, 65.8–74.6) observed in the R‐CHOP group (HR, 0.73, p = 0.02). The OS at 2 years was comparable between the Polivy plus R‐CHP arm and the R‐CHOP arm (88.7 vs. 88.6%; HR, 0.94, p = 0.75). Notably, there were no significant differences in the safety profile between the two groups. Based on these findings, Polivy received US FDA approval for the treatment of DLBCL. 370

ADC RESISTANCE MECHANISMS AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

Despite the promising advancements, the PFS of these ADCs varies from 2.0 to 28.8 months. Any abnormalities in the structure or selection of ADCs under therapeutic pressure can result in treatment resistance. The resistance mechanisms of ADCs may include: down‐regulation, deletion, or mutation of the target antigen gene; deficiency of internalization pathways; reduction of lysosomal proteolytic function; cell cycle arrest; overexpression of drug efflux transporters; dysregulation of apoptotic pathways; activation of alternative pathways (Figure 4 ).

Target antigen downregulation, deletion, or antigen gene mutation

In the context of therapeutic pressure selection, ADCs face various obstacles that can hinder their effectiveness. These obstacles include continued repeated exposure, blocked binding to the target receptor, downregulation of the target antigen, loss of antigen expression, or antigen gene mutation. 377 Tumor cells can develop tolerance to ADCs through repeated exposure, as seen in the case of the anti‐HER2 drug T‐DM1 and its resistance in HER2‐positive breast cancer cell lines. 378 To study this phenomenon, researchers commonly employ experimental methods such as constructing ADC resistance models. 17 , 379 Interestingly, high antigen expression can paradoxically reduce the effectiveness of ADCs. This is particularly evident with the use of GO (Mylotarg®), where a high CD33 antigen load in peripheral blood is considered an independent adverse prognostic factor. When gemtuzumab is administered intravenously, CD33 saturation in peripheral blood reaches maximum levels, but saturation in the bone marrow is significantly reduced (40–90% compared with over 90% in peripheral blood samples). It appears that a high CD33 antigen load depletes gemtuzumab and limits its penetration into the bone marrow, which may explain why GO only induces remission in about 30% of patients with relapsed AML. 380 Thus, GO should be administered at higher or repeated doses.

Truncation of the extracellular domain of the antigen or masking of extracellular matrix components may contribute to the mechanism of resistance to HER2‐ADCs. In certain tumors that overexpress HER2, there is also expression of p95HER2, which is a receptor with kinase activity that is truncated at the amino‐terminus. 381 , 382 An evaluation of p95HER2 expression using immunofluorescence in samples from 46 patients with HER2‐overexpressing advanced breast tumors treated with trastuzumab revealed a direct correlation between p95HER2 and trastuzumab resistance. 383 The extracellular domain shedding of p95HER2 protein may be generated by metalloprotease. 384 A combined therapy with a metalloprotease inhibitor and trastuzumab may overcome this mechanism. Furthermore, the expression of MUC4, a membrane‐associated mucin, is associated with trastuzumab resistance as it partially masks HER2 and hinders its binding. 385 Inhibition of MUC4 may be potential for enhancing the sensitivity to trastuzumab therapy. 386

Decreased antigen expression levels can also contribute to the development of ADC tolerance. Previous studies have shown that ligands such as NRG‐1β can promote heterodimerization of HER2 with HER3 and HER4, thereby reducing the effectiveness of T‐DM1. 387 , 388 For instance, when patients undergo front‐line trastuzumab and pertuzumab treatment, the expression level of HER2 may decrease, leading to a reduction in the therapeutic impact of T‐DM1 as a second‐line therapy. 389 Therefore, it becomes crucial to reevaluate the HER2 status in HER2‐positive breast cancer patients to ensure optimal treatment efficacy.

Deficiency of internalization pathways

The entry of ADC–antigen complex into cells is a crucial step for ADCs to exert their therapeutic effects, which is accomplished through endocytosis. Endocytosis can occur through various pathways, including clathrin‐mediated endocytosis (CME), caveolin‐dependent endocytosis (CDE), and clathrin–caveolin‐independent endocytosis. 390 , 391 If the endocytic pathway is blocked, ADCs cannot be internalized and transported. CME involves the internalization of molecules in cells through the progressive and sequential assembly of clathrin‐coated vesicles containing various transmembrane receptors and ligands. These vesicles deform the membrane, forming a vesicular bud that matures and eventually pinches off. The resulting intracellular vesicle then undergoes clathrin uncoating and fuses with the endosome to release its contents. 392 While CDE has been extensively researched, it is now recognized that numerous clathrin‐independent endocytic pathways exist in eukaryotic cells. Caveolae, small cave‐like invaginations in the plasma membrane, can be internalized into the cell similar to clathrin‐coated pits. These structures are sub‐domains of glycolipid rafts rich in cholesterol, sphingolipids, and caveolins, making CDE sensitive to cholesterol depletion agents like filipin and methyl‐β‐cyclodextrin. Caveolin‐1 (CAV1), essential for caveolae formation, is clustered within these membrane invaginations. Oligomerization of caveolins, facilitated by specific domains, leads to the creation of caveolin‐rich rafts in the plasma membrane. Elevated cholesterol levels, combined with the presence of caveolin scaffolding domains and the activity of dynamin2 (also involved in CME), promote the assembly and expansion of caveolar endocytic vesicles. 393 However, given that dynamin2 is necessary for both CME and CDE, it remains uncertain whether clathrin‐coated vesicles play a role in these processes.

In preclinical models, it was observed that cell lines with acquired resistance to T‐DM1 overexpressed CAV1. N87‐TM cells (T‐DM1‐resistant N87 cells) have a high amount of intracellular caveolin and internalize trastuzumab‐ADC through CAV1 ‐ dependent endocytosis. 394 , 395 Over time, the colocalization of trastuzumab and CAV1 increased in N87‐TM cells. 396 Since T‐DM1 is metabolically degraded in lysosomes, the colocalization of trastuzumab and lysosomes is reduced in these cells, leading to a decrease in the delivery efficiency of T‐DM1 to lysosomes. CAV1‐mediated endocytosis of T‐DM1 is associated with a reduced response to drugs, suggesting that CAV1 may play a role in the endocytosis of T‐DM1 and that this effect could be used to predict drug responsiveness. 396 In the cells where ADC was enriched in CAV1 vesicles, there was a significant reduction in ADC colocalization with lysosomes. This suggests that the delivery of T‐DM1 to lysosomes is less efficient. In cell lines that are sensitive to antimelanotransferrin ADC (L49–valine–citrulline–MMAF), ADC colocalizes with lysosomes. However, in resistant cell lines, ADC colocalizes with CAV1. 71 Although caveolae‐mediated endocytosis could be served as a potential predictive biomarker for response to T‐DM1, the strategy aiming to overcome this mechanism awaits further investigation.

Reduction of lysosomal proteolytic function

Lysosomes play a vital role in enabling the release of cytotoxic drugs from ADCs inside cells. Impairment in the hydrolysis or acidification function of lysosomal proteins hinders the breakdown of the linker molecule within the cell, thus preventing the release of cytotoxic drugs within the tumor cells. 397 , 398 In cells that were continuously exposed to T‐DM1 and developed drug resistance, there was an observed accumulation of lysosomes. 399 However, the therapeutic effectiveness of ADCs is limited due to the reduced activity of lysosomal proteolysis, despite the presence of the drug in lysosomes.

Resistance to ADCs can also occur due to difficulties in transporting cytotoxic agents from the lysosomal lumen to the cytoplasm. When ADCs are broken down, the attached cytotoxic agents are released. However, the lysosomal membrane prevents these breakdown products from passing through, necessitating transport mechanisms to move them into the cytoplasm. 256 To identify potential lysosomal transporters, Kinneer and colleagues conducted a phenotypic shRNA screen using an anti‐CD70–maytansine‐based ADC. This screen identified the lysosomal membrane protein SLC46A3 as a transporter that hinders the release of cytotoxic payloads from lysosomes to the cytoplasm. 400 , 401 Loss of SLC46A3 expression results in resistance to PBDs. 401 Conversely, the transport efficiency of noncleavable ADCs carrying structurally distinct cys‐linker‐MMAF was unaffected by SLC46A3 attenuation. 402

Recent studies have shown that resistance to T‐DM1 can be attributed to an increase in lysosomal pH and a decrease in lysosomal proteolytic activity. 403 Restoring lysosomal functionality may overcome resistance to ADCs and improve their therapeutic effectiveness. Another mechanism of T‐DM1 resistance is reduced lysosomal acidification, where abnormal activity of V‐ATPase in lysosomes of resistant cells leads to a highly acidic pH that promotes optimal activity of various hydrolases and vesicular transport. This results in defects in T‐DM1 metabolism and failure to inhibit microtubule polymerization, leading to T‐DM1 resistance. However, it has been observed that another HER2‐targeted ADC containing a cleavable linker H‐MMAE can overcome this resistance. 404 Therefore, ADCs with cleavable linkers may be able to overcome resistance caused by decreased lysosome V‐ATPase activity.

Cell cycle arrest

Cyclin B1 is a crucial protein that plays a vital role in activating cyclin‐dependent kinase 1 and initiating the M phase. 405 , 406 In T‐DM1 sensitive breast cancer cells, the expression of cyclin B is significantly higher compared with drug‐resistant cells.

Treatment with T‐DM1 results in an increase in cyclin B1 levels, leading to the onset of the mitotic catastrophe phenotype. This phenomenon, referred to as “mitotic catastrophe,” is viewed as a precursor to apoptosis, necrosis, or senescence. 407 , 408 However, cells resistant to T‐DM1 do not display this phenomenon unless there is a build‐up of cyclin B1. Additionally, activation of polo‐like kinase 1 hinders the mitotic process in the absence of cyclin B1. 409 The absence of cyclin B1 causing cell cycle arrest in the G2/M phase is now recognized as a contributing factor to resistance against ADC‐induced cell death. 410 Therefore, assessing cyclin B1 induction could serve as a pharmacodynamic predictor in ADC treatment.

Overexpression of drug efflux transporters

Chemoresistance in cancer cells often occurs when drugs are removed from the cytoplasm through ATP‐binding (ABC) transporters, also known as drug efflux pumps. 411 , 412 , 413 These transporters can also contribute to drug resistance in ADCs because many cytotoxic drugs are substrates of these transporters. P glycoprotein (P‐gp) is identified as the primary factor contributing to resistance against vc‐MMAE‐based conjugates, irrespective of P‐gp expression levels. In cases where a drug is internalized into the cell but swiftly removed by P‐gp, the efficacy of the ADC in eradicating cancer cells is compromised. 414 , 415 Consequently, this mechanism leads to resistance to antimicrotubule drugs in ADCs. Studies have demonstrated that altered expression of ABCB1/MDR1/P‐gp, ABCC1/MRP1, ABCC2, and ABCG2/BCRP/MXR/ABCP can result in resistance to T‐DM1, a specific antimicrotubule drug used in preclinical models. 416 Inhibiting the activity of these transporters in these studies restored sensitivity to T‐DM1. Of note, there is increasing evidence that conjugates such ADCs which enter the cell through endocytosis, and thereby bypass ABC transporters.

In the field of drug efflux pumps, one effective approach is to replace a drug form that can be actively pumped with a form that cannot. This can be achieved by either substituting it with a new ADC drug or modifying the payload through the use of a different load and coupling technology. For example, in the case of DM1, it was replaced with Lys–PEG4Mal–DM1, which utilized a maleimide‐based hydrophilic linker called PEG4Mal to prevent drug extrusion. 417 Another strategy involves selecting drugs that can reduce the activity of drug efflux pumps, thereby minimizing the efflux of active metabolites. 418

Dysregulation of apoptotic pathways

The modulation of apoptosis can have an impact on the sensitivity of tumor cells to ADC. In particular, resistance to GO has been linked to the overexpression of antiapoptotic proteins such as BCL‐2 and BCL‐X. 419 Several studies have shown that PK11195 can enhance the cytotoxicity of GO in AML cells and also increase the expression of antiapoptotic proteins and drug transporters. 420 In mouse models, PK11195 has been proven to safely enhance the effectiveness of GO against leukemia. 420 Furthermore, Oblimersen, which targets Bcl‐2 mRNA, has been found to enhance the apoptotic activity of various antileukemia drugs, including GO, in preclinical studies. 421 Dornan and colleagues have discovered a correlation between the expression levels of BCL‐XL and reduced sensitivity to anti‐CD79b–valine–citrulline–MMAE in non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma cell lines. In vivo data further supported the finding that the BCL‐2 family inhibitor ABT‐263 enhanced the activity of ADC. 371

Activation of alternative pathways

Activation of the alternative pathway plays a significant role in contributing to ADC resistance. For instance, studies have observed that the activation of the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway leads to the development of ADC resistance. In one particular study, MK‐2206, a small molecule allosteric inhibitor of AKT, was found to enhance the sensitivity of drug‐resistant cells to GO or free calicheamicin. 422 Other research has indicated that the PI3K/AKT pathway is activated through HER2/HER3 dimerization. 388 Additionally, the addition of the HER3 ligand NRG has been found to counteract the effects of T‐DM1 in certain HER2‐positive cell lines. 423

In models of acquired resistance to T‐DM1 and primary resistance to trastuzumab, a decrease in HER2 levels is observed alongside an increase in EGFR levels, which also contributes to resistance. 424 , 425 , 426 However, it is important to note that solely silencing EGFR is not sufficient to reverse the drug‐resistant phenotype. Additionally, the elevated levels of EGFR were found to result in increased levels of integrins (α5β1 and αVβ3), thereby enhancing the motility and invasiveness of resistant cells. 424

Judging types of causes that show resistance or tolerance to ADCs

Various methods have been utilized to identify the causes of resistance or tolerance to ADCs, depending on the specific resistance mechanism. These methods include immunohistochemical detection of antigen expression, whole‐genome sequencing to pinpoint target mutations and amplifications, assessment of proliferation‐related molecules like cyclin B1 expression levels or overexpression of antiapoptotic proteins such as BCL‐2 and BCL‐X, upregulation of ABC transporters, immunofluorescence to assess lysosome condition, proteomic analysis of proteins involved in drug efflux transport and bypass pathway activation, and evaluation of pH values within tumor cells. 394 , 427 , 428 For instance, resistance to T‐DM1 can result from loss or decreased expression of HER2. 394 ADCs that rely on consistent HER2 expression levels may face resistance if there are changes in HER2 levels. Moreover, HER2+ tumors tend to exhibit lower HER2 expression post‐treatment, with more heterogeneous expression linked to higher recurrence and lower survival rates. 429 Therefore, it is crucial to assess the expression status of HER2 for ADCs that necessitate uniform HER2 expression. Proteomic analysis has shown that increased levels of Rab6, a protein involved in microtubule‐mediated transport, and PAK4, a protein related to cytoskeletal tension, are present in DM1‐resistant cell lines. 378 Hence, detecting Rab6 and PAK4 levels through proteomic analysis can help identify resistance. Additionally, some ADCs feature acid‐lysable linkers that are primarily cleaved in acidic tumor microenvironments or within acidic cellular compartments like endosomes and lysosomes, while remaining stable in the bloodstream. 430 In low pH lysosomal environments, these linkers are rapidly broken down, releasing small molecular toxins that induce cell death. 430 Changes in pH levels can impact the efficacy of ADCs, as seen in T‐DM1‐resistant cells lacking proteolytic activity, leading to drug accumulation akin to lysosomal storage diseases. Therefore, pH‐dependent ADCs targeting EGFR, HER2, AXL, and c‐MET can be used to assess resistance by monitoring cellular pH value. 431 By discerning the causes of resistance or tolerance to ADCs, researchers can formulate effective strategies to overcome these challenges.

Future design of ADCs to overcome resistance

In order to overcome ADC resistance, researchers are exploring and implementing various new strategies for ADC design. One approach is to improve the intracellular trafficking of ADCs using a bispecific antibody (bsAb) approach, such as HER2×HER3 bsAb and SORT1×HER2 bispecific ADC. 432 , 433 Moreover, there have been advancements in improving conventional conjugations by exploring small antibody molecules like bispecific Fab, immunosuppressive antibodies, antibody–antibiotic conjugates, and short peptide tags. 434 , 435 Additionally, researchers have been investigating updates to drug release patterns. Some ADCs can achieve targeted release in the hypoxic and acidic tumor microenvironment, while others can directly function in the tumor microenvironment without the need for endocytosis. 436 , 437 Furthermore, future ADCs may incorporate new drug‐loading ingredients or cytotoxins such as immunomodulators, nuclides, nucleic acids, and so on. These emerging technologies and theories are expected to significantly impact the development of new ADCs, enabling them to overcome drug resistance and improve efficacy and safety.

CONCLUSION AND PROSPECTS

Since the first application of ADC in 2000, ongoing research has shown that ADCs offer a new and promising treatment option for various types of cancer. 438 When compared with traditional chemoradiotherapy, ADC drugs demonstrate superior antitumor effects due to their high specificity, effectiveness, long half‐life, minimal adverse reactions, and positive prognostic outcomes. As a result, ADCs have emerged as a prominent area of focus in global drug research and development.

While the emergence of ADCs has expanded the range of treatment options available to cancer patients, it is crucial to acknowledge that most tumors will eventually develop resistance to these drugs. Given the intricate nature of ADCs, potential mechanisms of resistance may encompass reduced antigen expression, diminished ADC transport and processing, resistance to cytotoxic payloads, and heightened drug efflux. Ongoing studies on optimizing sequential and combination therapy with ADCs will provide further insights into their optimal use. Combination drugs can effectively counter resistance and enhance treatment effects, similar to many combination therapies used in traditional chemotherapy. ADCs can also be used in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, PD‐1/L1 antibody, and others.

With advancements in small molecule screening and protein recombinant molecular biotechnology, novel antibody coupling modes have emerged in drug development. These include antibody fragment–cytotoxic drug conjugate, antibody–oligonucleotide conjugate (AOC), 439 and antibody–immunostimulatory conjugate. 440 , 441 Notably, the first AOC incorporating oligonucleotide‐based drugs has progressed to clinical trials. 442 While traditional ADCs rely on internalization into tumor cells for cytotoxin release, limiting research to targets with highly expressed internalized antigens, recent focus has shifted to noninternalizing antibody‐coupled drugs with extracellular payload release mechanisms. This approach broadens the spectrum of cancer targets by eliminating the need for high antigen expression and inefficient internalization. 443 Moving forward, enhancing clinical efficacy and tolerability remains a priority. Understanding the interplay between antibody coupling drug structures, clinical activity, and mechanism of action is essential for optimizing design elements, such as exploring antibody versatility and developing more stable linkers. The discovery of new antigens and cytotoxic drugs will be critical in enhancing drug efficacy.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Jun He and Xianghua Zeng collected the literatures and drafted the manuscript. Chunmei Wang drew the figures and tables. Corresponding authors, including Yongsheng Li and Enwen Wang, provided their corrective comments and tips. Yongsheng Li revised the manuscript. All authors collaborated to write the article and approved its publication.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Not applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The figures were created by using Microsoft Powerpoint and BioRender ( https://www.biorender.com/ ). This work was supported by the Major International (Regional) Joint Research Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81920108027 to Yongsheng Li), Funding for Chongqing Young and Middle‐Aged Medical Excellence Team (to Yongsheng Li), Funding for University Innovation Research Group of Chongqing (to Yongsheng Li), Research Capacity Enhancement Project of Chongqing University Cancer Hospital (Y121 to Yongsheng Li), and Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing, China (No. 2023NSCQ‐MSX3332 to Enwen Wang; No. cstc2021jcyj‐msxmX0463 to Xianghua Zeng).

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Not applicable.

REFERENCES

1 Strebhardt K , Ullrich A . Paul Ehrlich's magic bullet concept: 100 years of progress . Nat Rev Cancer . 2008 ; 8 ( 6 ): 473 ‐ 480 . 18469827 10.1038/nrc2394

2 Dumontet C , Reichert JM , Senter PD , Lambert JM , Beck A . Antibody‐drug conjugates come of age in oncology . Nat Rev Drug Discov . 2023 ; 22 ( 8 ): 641 ‐ 661 . 37308581 10.1038/s41573-023-00709-2

3 Ghose T , Cerini M , Carter M , Nairn RC . Immunoradioactive agent against cancer . Br Med J . 1967 ; 1 ( 5532 ): 90 ‐ 93 . 6015636 10.1136/bmj.1.5532.90 PMC1840410

4 Sievers EL , Larson RA , Stadtmauer EA , et al. Efficacy and safety of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in patients with CD33‐positive acute myeloid leukemia in first relapse . J Clin Oncol . 2001 ; 19 ( 13 ): 3244 ‐ 3254 . 11432892 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.13.3244

5 Swaminathan M , Cortes JE . Update on the role of gemtuzumab‐ozogamicin in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia . Ther Adv Hematol . 2023 ; 14 : 20406207231154708 . 36845850 10.1177/20406207231154708 PMC9943952

6 Senter PD , Sievers EL . The discovery and development of brentuximab vedotin for use in relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma . Nat Biotechnol . 2012 ; 30 ( 7 ): 631 ‐ 637 . 22781692 10.1038/nbt.2289

7 Amiri‐Kordestani L , Blumenthal GM , Xu QC , et al. FDA approval: ado‐trastuzumab emtansine for the treatment of patients with HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer . Clin Cancer Res . 2014 ; 20 ( 17 ): 4436 ‐ 4441 . 24879797 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0012

8 Fu Z , Li S , Han S , Shi C , Zhang Y . Antibody drug conjugate: the “biological missile” for targeted cancer therapy . Signal Transduct Target Ther . 2022 ; 7 ( 1 ): 93 . 35318309 10.1038/s41392-022-00947-7 PMC8941077

9 Sun T , Niu X , He Q , Liu M , Qiao S , Qi RQ . Development, efficacy and side effects of antibody‑drug conjugates for cancer therapy (Review) . Mol Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 18 ( 6 ): 47 . 37206431 10.3892/mco.2023.2643 PMC10189422

10 Fujii T , Matsuda Y , Seki T , et al. AJICAP second generation: improved chemical site‐specific conjugation technology for antibody‐drug conjugate production . Bioconjug Chem . 2023 ; 34 ( 4 ): 728 ‐ 738 . 36894324 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.3c00040 PMC10119932

11 Rassy E , Delaloge S . A second‐generation antibody‐drug conjugate to treat HER2‐positive breast cancer . Lancet . 2023 ; 401 ( 10371 ): 80 ‐ 81 . 36495878 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02534-X

12 Junutula JR , Raab H , Clark S , et al. Site‐specific conjugation of a cytotoxic drug to an antibody improves the therapeutic index . Nat Biotechnol . 2008 ; 26 ( 8 ): 925 ‐ 932 . 18641636 10.1038/nbt.1480

13 Tsuchikama K , Anami Y , Ha SYY , Yamazaki CM . Exploring the next generation of antibody‐drug conjugates . Nat Rev Clin Oncol . 2024 ; 21 ( 3 ): 203 ‐ 223 . 38191923 10.1038/s41571-023-00850-2

14 Drago JZ , Modi S , Chandarlapaty S . Unlocking the potential of antibody‐drug conjugates for cancer therapy . Nat Rev Clin Oncol . 2021 ; 18 ( 6 ): 327 ‐ 344 . 33558752 10.1038/s41571-021-00470-8 PMC8287784

15 Tarantino P , Ricciuti B , Pradhan SM , Tolaney SM . Optimizing the safety of antibody‐drug conjugates for patients with solid tumours . Nat Rev Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 20 ( 8 ): 558 ‐ 576 . 37296177 10.1038/s41571-023-00783-w

16 Maiti R , Patel B , Patel N , Patel M , Patel A , Dhanesha N . Antibody drug conjugates as targeted cancer therapy: past development, present challenges and future opportunities . Arch Pharm Res . 2023 ; 46 ( 5 ): 361 ‐ 388 . 37071273 10.1007/s12272-023-01447-0 PMC11345756

17 Khoury R , Saleh K , Khalife N , et al. Mechanisms of resistance to antibody‐drug conjugates . Int J Mol Sci . 2023 ; 24 ( 11 ): 9674 . 37298631 10.3390/ijms24119674 PMC10253543

18 Antibodie MihăilăRG . Bispecific antibodies and antibody‐drug conjugates in oncohematology . Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov . 2020 ; 15 ( 4 ): 272 ‐ 292 . 32981510 10.2174/1574892815666200925120717

19 Goldmacher VS , Kovtun YV . Antibody‐drug conjugates: using monoclonal antibodies for delivery of cytotoxic payloads to cancer cells . Ther Deliv . 2011 ; 2 ( 3 ): 397 ‐ 416 . 22834009 10.4155/tde.10.98

20 Kohler G , Milstein C . Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity . Nature . 1975 ; 256 ( 5517 ): 495 ‐ 497 . 1172191 10.1038/256495a0

21 Lakshman A , Kumar SK . Chimeric antigen receptor T‐cells, bispecific antibodies, and antibody‐drug conjugates for multiple myeloma: an update . Am J Hematol . 2022 ; 97 ( 1 ): 99 ‐ 118 . 34661922 10.1002/ajh.26379

22 McDermott MSJ , O'Brien NA , Hoffstrom B , et al. Preclinical efficacy of the antibody‐drug conjugate CLDN6‐23‐ADC for the treatment of CLDN6‐positive solid tumors . Clin Cancer Res . 2023 ; 29 ( 11 ): 2131 ‐ 2143 . 36884217 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-2981 PMC10233360

23 Feng Y , Lee J , Yang L , et al. Engineering CD276/B7‐H3‐targeted antibody‐drug conjugates with enhanced cancer‐eradicating capability . Cell Rep . 2023 ; 42 ( 12 ): 113503 . 38019654 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113503 PMC10872261

24 Hong Y , Nam SM , Moon A . Antibody‐drug conjugates and bispecific antibodies targeting cancers: applications of click chemistry . Arch Pharm Res . 2023 ; 46 ( 3 ): 131 ‐ 148 . 36877356 10.1007/s12272-023-01433-6

25 Ranchon F , Chatelut É , Lambert J , et al. [Antibody drug conjugates (ADC) and bispecific antibodies in oncology—report of the 2022 Saint Louis day] . Bull Cancer . 2023 ; 110 ( 12 ): 1343 ‐ 1351 . 37827964 10.1016/j.bulcan.2023.07.009

26 Falchi L , Vardhana SA , Salles GA . Bispecific antibodies for the treatment of B‐cell lymphoma: promises, unknowns, and opportunities . Blood . 2023 ; 141 ( 5 ): 467 ‐ 480 . 36322929 10.1182/blood.2021011994 PMC9936308

27 Perez Bay AE , Faulkner D , DaSilva JO , et al. A bispecific METxMET antibody‐drug conjugate with cleavable linker is processed in recycling and late endosomes . Mol Cancer Ther . 2023 ; 22 ( 3 ): 357 ‐ 370 . 36861363 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-22-0414 PMC9978886

28 Andreev J , Thambi N , Perez Bay AE , et al. Bispecific antibodies and antibody‐drug conjugates (ADCs) bridging HER2 and prolactin receptor improve efficacy of HER2 ADCs . Mol Cancer Ther . 2017 ; 16 ( 4 ): 681 ‐ 693 . 28108597 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0658

29 Matsuda Y , Mendelsohn BA . An overview of process development for antibody‐drug conjugates produced by chemical conjugation technology . Expert Opin Biol Ther . 2021 ; 21 ( 7 ): 963 ‐ 975 . 33141625 10.1080/14712598.2021.1846714

30 Inoue K , Mochizuki T , Kasamori N , Komori T . Determination of drug‐to‐antibody ratio of antibody‐drug conjugate in biological samples using microflow‐liquid chromatography/high‐resolution mass spectrometry . Bioanalysis . 2022 ; 14 ( 24 ): 1533 ‐ 1545 . 36825963 10.4155/bio-2022-0219

31 Matsuda Y , Mendelsohn BA . Recent advances in drug‐antibody ratio determination of antibody‐drug conjugates . Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo) . 2021 ; 69 ( 10 ): 976 ‐ 983 . 34602579 10.1248/cpb.c21-00258

32 Mahmood I . Clinical pharmacology of antibody‐drug conjugates . Antibodies (Basel) . 2021 ; 10 ( 2 ): 20 . 34063812 10.3390/antib10020020 PMC8161445

33 Matsuda Y . Current approaches for the purification of antibody‐drug conjugates . J Sep Sci . 2022 ; 45 ( 1 ): 27 ‐ 37 . 34473399 10.1002/jssc.202100575

34 Dong W , Wang W , Cao C . The evolution of antibody‐drug conjugates: toward accurate DAR and multi‐specificity . ChemMedChem . 2024 : e202400109 . 38758596 10.1002/cmdc.202400109

35 Zhou Q , Kyazike J , Boudanova E , et al. Site‐specific antibody conjugation to engineered double cysteine residues . Pharmaceuticals (Basel) . 2021 ; 14 ( 7 ): 672 . 34358098 10.3390/ph14070672 PMC8308878

36 Zhou Q . Site‐specific antibody conjugation with payloads beyond cytotoxins . Molecules . 2023 ; 28 ( 3 ): 917 . 36770585 10.3390/molecules28030917 PMC9921355

37 Okojie J , McCollum S , Barrott J . The future of antibody drug conjugation by comparing various methods of site‐specific conjugation . Discov Med . 2023 ; 35 ( 179 ): 921 ‐ 927 . 38058056 10.24976/Discov.Med.202335179.87

38 Francisco JA , Cerveny CG , Meyer DL , et al. cAC10‐vcMMAE, an anti‐CD30‐monomethyl auristatin E conjugate with potent and selective antitumor activity . Blood . 2003 ; 102 ( 4 ): 1458 ‐ 1465 . 12714494 10.1182/blood-2003-01-0039

39 Kondrashov A , Sapkota S , Sharma A , Riano I , Kurzrock R , Adashek JJ . Antibody‐drug conjugates in solid tumor oncology: an effectiveness payday with a targeted payload . Pharmaceutics . 2023 ; 15 ( 8 ): 2160 . 37631374 10.3390/pharmaceutics15082160 PMC10459723

40 Peerzada MN , Dar MS , Verma S . Development of tubulin polymerization inhibitors as anticancer agents . Expert Opin Ther Pat . 2023 ; 33 ( 11 ): 797 ‐ 820 . 38054831 10.1080/13543776.2023.2291390

41 Duan Y , Liu W , Tian L , Mao Y , Song C . Targeting tubulin‐colchicine site for cancer therapy: inhibitors, antibody‐ drug conjugates and degradation agents . Curr Top Med Chem . 2019 ; 19 ( 15 ): 1289 ‐ 1304 . 31210108 10.2174/1568026619666190618130008

42 Swiderska KW , Szlachcic A , Czyrek A , Zakrzewska M , Otlewski J . Site‐specific conjugation of fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) based on incorporation of alkyne‐reactive unnatural amino acid . Bioorg Med Chem . 2017 ; 25 ( 14 ): 3685 ‐ 3693 . 28522266 10.1016/j.bmc.2017.05.003

43 Levengood MR , Zhang X , Hunter JH , et al. Orthogonal cysteine protection enables homogeneous multi‐drug antibody‐drug conjugates . Angew Chem Int Ed Engl . 2017 ; 56 ( 3 ): 733 ‐ 737 . 27966822 10.1002/anie.201608292 PMC5299463

44 Li Y , Su J , Tan S , Luo Y , Zhang L . Research progress on novel antibody drug conjugates in cancer therapy . Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban . 2024 ; 49 ( 2 ): 296 ‐ 304 . 38755726 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2024.230418 PMC11103054

45 McKertish CM , Kayser V . A novel dual‐payload ADC for the treatment of HER2+ breast and colon cancer . Pharmaceutics . 2023 ; 15 ( 8 ): 2020 . 37631234 10.3390/pharmaceutics15082020 PMC10459570

46 Schlam I , Moges R , Morganti S , Tolaney SM , Tarantino P . Next‐generation antibody‐drug conjugates for breast cancer: moving beyond HER2 and TROP2 . Crit Rev Oncol Hematol . 2023 ; 190 : 104090 . 37562695 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104090

47 Giugliano F , Corti C , Tarantino P , Michelini F , Curigliano G . Bystander effect of antibody‐drug conjugates: fact or fiction? Curr Oncol Rep . 2022 ; 24 ( 7 ): 809 ‐ 817 . 35305211 10.1007/s11912-022-01266-4

48 Bargh JD , Isidro‐Llobet A , Parker JS , Spring DR . Cleavable linkers in antibody‐drug conjugates . Chem Soc Rev . 2019 ; 48 ( 16 ): 4361 ‐ 4374 . 31294429 10.1039/c8cs00676h

49 Nicolaou KC , Rigol S , Pitsinos EN , et al. Uncialamycin‐based antibody‐drug conjugates: unique enediyne ADCs exhibiting bystander killing effect . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 2021 ; 118 ( 25 ): e2107042118 . 34155147 10.1073/pnas.2107042118 PMC8237573

50 Duro‐Sánchez S , Nadal‐Serrano M , Lalinde‐Gutiérrez M , et al. Therapy‐induced senescence enhances the efficacy of HER2‐targeted antibody‐drug conjugates in breast cancer . Cancer Res . 2022 ; 82 ( 24 ): 4670 ‐ 4679 . 36222720 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-0787 PMC9755966

51 Sheyi R , de la Torre BG , Albericio F . Linkers: an assurance for controlled delivery of antibody‐drug conjugate . Pharmaceutics . 2022 ; 14 ( 2 ): 396 . 35214128 10.3390/pharmaceutics14020396 PMC8874516

52 Su D , Zhang D . Linker design impacts antibody‐drug conjugate pharmacokinetics and efficacy via modulating the stability and payload release efficiency . Front Pharmacol . 2021 ; 12 : 687926 . 34248637 10.3389/fphar.2021.687926 PMC8262647

53 Edupuganti V , Tyndall J , Gamble AB . Self‐immolative linkers in prodrugs and antibody drug conjugates in cancer treatment . Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov . 2021 ; 16 ( 4 ): 479 ‐ 497 . 33966624 10.2174/1574892816666210509001139

54 Jin Y , Edalatian Zakeri S , Bahal R , Wiemer AJ . New technologies bloom together for bettering cancer drug conjugates . Pharmacol Rev . 2022 ; 74 ( 3 ): 680 ‐ 711 . 35710136 10.1124/pharmrev.121.000499 PMC9553120

55 Pettinato MC . Introduction to antibody‐drug conjugates . Antibodies (Basel) . 2021 ; 10 ( 4 ): 42 . 34842621 10.3390/antib10040042 PMC8628511

56 Teicher BA , Morris J . Antibody‐drug conjugate targets, drugs, and linkers . Curr Cancer Drug Targets . 2022 ; 22 ( 6 ): 463 ‐ 529 . 35209819 10.2174/1568009622666220224110538

57 Beck A , Goetsch L , Dumontet C , Corvaia N . Strategies and challenges for the next generation of antibody‐drug conjugates . Nat Rev Drug Discov . 2017 ; 16 ( 5 ): 315 ‐ 337 . 28303026 10.1038/nrd.2016.268

58 Tsuchikama K , An Z . Antibody‐drug conjugates: recent advances in conjugation and linker chemistries . Protein Cell . 2018 ; 9 ( 1 ): 33 ‐ 46 . 27743348 10.1007/s13238-016-0323-0 PMC5777969

59 Spangler B , Kline T , Hanson J , et al. Toward a ferrous iron‐cleavable linker for antibody‐drug conjugates . Mol Pharm . 2018 ; 15 ( 5 ): 2054 ‐ 2059 . 29569925 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b00242

60 Gray ME , Zielinski KM , Xu F , et al. A comparison of the activity, lysosomal stability, and efficacy of legumain‐cleavable and cathepsin cleavable ADC linkers . Xenobiotica . 2024 : 1 ‐ 13 . 10.1080/00498254.2024.2352051 PMC11436314 38738708

61 Johan AN , Li Y . Development of photoremovable linkers as a novel strategy to improve the pharmacokinetics of drug conjugates and their potential application in antibody‐drug conjugates for cancer therapy . Pharmaceuticals (Basel) . 2022 ; 15 ( 6 ): 655 . 35745573 10.3390/ph15060655 PMC9230074

62 Su Z , Xiao D , Xie F , et al. Antibody‐drug conjugates: recent advances in linker chemistry . Acta Pharm Sin B . 2021 ; 11 ( 12 ): 3889 ‐ 3907 . 35024314 10.1016/j.apsb.2021.03.042 PMC8727783

63 Kostova V , Désos P , Starck JB , Kotschy A . The chemistry behind ADCs . Pharmaceuticals (Basel) . 2021 ; 14 ( 5 ): 442 . 34067144 10.3390/ph14050442 PMC8152005

64 Vozella F , Fazio F , Lapietra G , Petrucci MT , Martinelli G , Cerchione C . Monoclonal antibodies in multiple myeloma . Panminerva Med . 2021 ; 63 ( 1 ): 21 ‐ 27 . 32955188 10.23736/S0031-0808.20.04149-X

65 Hosseini SS , Khalili S , Baradaran B , et al. Bispecific monoclonal antibodies for targeted immunotherapy of solid tumors: recent advances and clinical trials . Int J Biol Macromol . 2021 ; 167 : 1030 ‐ 1047 . 33197478 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.058

66 Chen W , Yuan Y , Jiang X . Antibody and antibody fragments for cancer immunotherapy . J Control Release . 2020 ; 328 : 395 ‐ 406 . 32853733 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.08.021

67 Najjar MK , Manore SG , Regua AT , Lo HW . Antibody‐drug conjugates for the treatment of HER2‐positive breast cancer . Genes (Basel) . 2022 ; 13 ( 11 ): 2065 . 36360302 10.3390/genes13112065 PMC9691220

68 Nicolò E , Tarantino P , Curigliano G . Biology and treatment of HER2‐low breast cancer . Hematol Oncol Clin North Am . 2023 ; 37 ( 1 ): 117 ‐ 132 . 36435605 10.1016/j.hoc.2022.08.013

69 Ferraro E , Drago JZ , Modi S . Implementing antibody‐drug conjugates (ADCs) in HER2‐positive breast cancer: state of the art and future directions . Breast Cancer Res . 2021 ; 23 ( 1 ): 84 . 34380530 10.1186/s13058-021-01459-y PMC8356386

70 Srideshikan SM , Brooks J , Zuro D , et al. ImmunoPET, [(64)Cu]Cu‐DOTA‐Anti‐CD33 PET‐CT, imaging of an AML xenograft model . Clin Cancer Res . 2019 ; 25 ( 24 ): 7463 ‐ 7474 . 31548348 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1106 PMC6911626

71 Smith LM , Nesterova A , Alley SC , Torgov MY , Carter PJ . Potent cytotoxicity of an auristatin‐containing antibody‐drug conjugate targeting melanoma cells expressing melanotransferrin/p97 . Mol Cancer Ther . 2006 ; 5 ( 6 ): 1474 ‐ 1482 . 16818506 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0026

72 Ingle GS , Chan P , Elliott JM , et al. High CD21 expression inhibits internalization of anti‐CD19 antibodies and cytotoxicity of an anti‐CD19‐drug conjugate . Br J Haematol . 2008 ; 140 ( 1 ): 46 ‐ 58 . 17991300 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06883.x PMC2228374

73 Yang T , Li W , Huang T , Zhou J . Antibody‐drug conjugates for breast cancer treatment: emerging agents, targets and future directions . Int J Mol Sci . 2023 ; 24 ( 15 ): 11903 . 37569276 10.3390/ijms241511903 PMC10418918

74 Li WQ , Guo HF , Li LY , Zhang YF , Cui JW . The promising role of antibody drug conjugate in cancer therapy: combining targeting ability with cytotoxicity effectively . Cancer Med . 2021 ; 10 ( 14 ): 4677 ‐ 4696 . 34165267 10.1002/cam4.4052 PMC8290258

75 Jiang M , Li Q , Xu B . Spotlight on ideal target antigens and resistance in antibody‐drug conjugates: strategies for competitive advancement . Drug Resist Updat . 2024 ; 75 : 101086 . 38677200 10.1016/j.drup.2024.101086

76 Esapa B , Jiang J , Cheung A , Chenoweth A , Thurston DE , Karagiannis SN . Target antigen attributes and their contributions to clinically approved antibody‐drug conjugates (ADCs) in haematopoietic and solid cancers . Cancers (Basel) . 2023 ; 15 ( 6 ): 1845 . 36980732 10.3390/cancers15061845 PMC10046624

77 Gebleux R , Wulhfard S , Casi G , Neri D . Antibody format and drug release rate determine the therapeutic activity of noninternalizing antibody‐drug conjugates . Mol Cancer Ther . 2015 ; 14 ( 11 ): 2606 ‐ 2612 . 26294742 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0480 PMC5606287

78 Tivadar ST , McIntosh RS , Chua JX , et al. Monoclonal antibody targeting sialyl‐di‐Lewis(a)‐containing internalizing and noninternalizing glycoproteins with cancer immunotherapy development potential . Mol Cancer Ther . 2020 ; 19 ( 3 ): 790 ‐ 801 . 31871270 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-0221

79 Umotoy JC , de Taeye SW . Antibody conjugates for targeted therapy against HIV‐1 as an emerging tool for HIV‐1 cure . Front Immunol . 2021 ; 12 : 708806 . 34276704 10.3389/fimmu.2021.708806 PMC8282362

80 Pincus SH , Stackhouse M , Watt C , et al. Soluble CD4 and low molecular weight CD4‐mimetic compounds sensitize cells to be killed by anti‐HIV cytotoxic immunoconjugates . J Virol . 2023 ; 97 ( 10 ): e0115423 . 37772823 10.1128/jvi.01154-23 PMC10617435

81 Punyakoti P , Behl T , Sehgal A , et al. Postulating the possible cellular signalling mechanisms of antibody drug conjugates in Alzheimer's disease . Cell Signal . 2023 ; 102 : 110539 . 36455831 10.1016/j.cellsig.2022.110539

82 Huang Z , Braunstein Z , Chen J , et al. Precision medicine in rheumatic diseases: unlocking the potential of antibody‐drug conjugates . Pharmacol Rev . 2024 ; 76 ( 4 ): 579 ‐ 598 . 38622001 10.1124/pharmrev.123.001084

83 Johnson K , Delaney JC , Guillard T , et al. Development of an antibody fused with an antimicrobial peptide targeting Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a new approach to prevent and treat bacterial infections . PLoS Pathog . 2023 ; 19 ( 9 ): e1011612 . 37676873 10.1371/journal.ppat.1011612 PMC10508631

84 Cappello E , Nieri P . From life in the sea to the clinic: the marine drugs approved and under clinical trial . Life (Basel) . 2021 ; 11 ( 12 ): 1390 . 34947921 10.3390/life11121390 PMC8704254

85 Choi Y , Choi Y , Hong S . Recent technological and intellectual property trends in antibody‐drug conjugate research . Pharmaceutics . 2024 ; 16 ( 2 ): 221 . 38399275 10.3390/pharmaceutics16020221 PMC10892729

86 FDA gives nod to T‐DXd for HER2‐mutant NSCLC . Cancer Discov . 2022 ; 12 ( 10 ): 2224 . 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-NB2022-0053 35984233

87 Goldenberg DM , Sharkey RM . Sacituzumab govitecan, a novel, third‐generation, antibody‐drug conjugate (ADC) for cancer therapy . Expert Opin Biol Ther . 2020 ; 20 ( 8 ): 871 ‐ 885 . 32301634 10.1080/14712598.2020.1757067

88 Chang E , Weinstock C , Zhang L , et al. FDA approval summary: enfortumab vedotin for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma . Clin Cancer Res . 2021 ; 27 ( 4 ): 922 ‐ 927 . 32962979 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2275

89 Riccardi F , Dal Bo M , Macor P , Toffoli G . A comprehensive overview on antibody‐drug conjugates: from the conceptualization to cancer therapy . Front Pharmacol . 2023 ; 14 : 1274088 . 37790810 10.3389/fphar.2023.1274088 PMC10544916

90 Aghanejad A , Bonab SF , Sepehri M , et al. A review on targeting tumor microenvironment: the main paradigm shift in the mAb‐based immunotherapy of solid tumors . Int J Biol Macromol . 2022 ; 207 : 592 ‐ 610 . 35296439 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.03.057

91 Gébleux R , Stringhini M , Casanova R , Soltermann A , Neri D . Non‐internalizing antibody‐drug conjugates display potent anti‐cancer activity upon proteolytic release of monomethyl auristatin E in the subendothelial extracellular matrix . Int J Cancer . 2017 ; 140 ( 7 ): 1670 ‐ 1679 . 27943268 10.1002/ijc.30569 PMC5606289

92 Habban Akhter M , Sateesh Madhav N , Ahmad J . Epidermal growth factor receptor based active targeting: a paradigm shift towards advance tumor therapy . Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol . 2018 ; 46 ( sup2 ): 1188 ‐ 1198 . 29991287 10.1080/21691401.2018.1481863

93 Yan M , Schwaederle M , Arguello D , Millis SZ , Gatalica Z , Kurzrock R . HER2 expression status in diverse cancers: review of results from 37,992 patients . Cancer Metastasis Rev . 2015 ; 34 ( 1 ): 157 ‐ 164 . 25712293 10.1007/s10555-015-9552-6 PMC4368842

94 Marra A , Chandarlapaty S , Modi S . Management of patients with advanced‐stage HER2‐positive breast cancer: current evidence and future perspectives . Nat Rev Clin Oncol . 2024 ; 21 ( 3 ): 185 ‐ 202 . 38191924 10.1038/s41571-023-00849-9 PMC12327481

95 Nasioudis D , Gysler S , Latif N , et al. Molecular landscape of ERBB2/HER2 gene amplification among patients with gynecologic malignancies; clinical implications and future directions . Gynecol Oncol . 2024 ; 180 : 1 ‐ 5 . 38029652 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.11.021

96 Odintsov I , Makarem M , Nishino M , et al. Prevalence and therapeutic targeting of high‐level ERBB2 amplification in NSCLC . J Thorac Oncol . 2024 ; 19 ( 5 ): 732 ‐ 748 . 38154514 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.12.019 PMC11957432

97 Abelman RO , Medford A , Spring L , Bardia A . Antibody‐drug conjugates in breast cancer: spotlight on HER2 . Cancer J . 2022 ; 28 ( 6 ): 423 ‐ 428 . 36383904 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000634 PMC9681022

98 Jørgensen JT . The potential of trastuzumab deruxtecan as a tissue agnostic drug . Oncology . 2023 ; 101 ( 12 ): 836 ‐ 842 . 37651992 10.1159/000533866

99 Shi F , Liu Y , Zhou X , Shen P , Xue R , Zhang M . Disitamab vedotin: a novel antibody‐drug conjugates for cancer therapy . Drug Deliv . 2022 ; 29 ( 1 ): 1335 ‐ 1344 . 35506447 10.1080/10717544.2022.2069883 PMC9090390

100 Deeks ED . Disitamab vedotin: first approval . Drugs . 2021 ; 81 ( 16 ): 1929 ‐ 1935 . 34661865 10.1007/s40265-021-01614-x

101 Yip V , Saad OM , Leipold D , Li C , Kamath A , Shen BQ . Monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a payload for multiple antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), demonstrates differential red blood cell partitioning across human and animal species . Xenobiotica . 2024 : 1 ‐ 13 . 10.1080/00498254.2024.2345849 38647387

102 Burris HA 3rd , Rugo HS , Vukelja SJ , et al. Phase II study of the antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab‐DM1 for the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)‐positive breast cancer after prior HER2‐directed therapy . J Clin Oncol . 2011 ; 29 ( 4 ): 398 ‐ 405 . 21172893 10.1200/JCO.2010.29.5865

103 Krop IE , Beeram M , Modi S , et al. Phase I study of trastuzumab‐DM1, an HER2 antibody‐drug conjugate, given every 3 weeks to patients with HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer . J Clin Oncol . 2010 ; 28 ( 16 ): 2698 ‐ 2704 . 20421541 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.2071

104 Krop IE , Kim SB , Martin AG , et al. Trastuzumab emtansine versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with previously treated HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer (TH3RESA): final overall survival results from a randomised open‐label phase 3 trial . Lancet Oncol . 2017 ; 18 ( 6 ): 743 ‐ 754 . 28526538 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30313-3

105 Hurvitz SA , Martin M , Symmans WF , et al. Neoadjuvant trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and chemotherapy versus trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab in patients with HER2‐positive breast cancer (KRISTINE): a randomised, open‐label, multicentre, phase 3 trial . Lancet Oncol . 2018 ; 19 ( 1 ): 115 ‐ 126 . 29175149 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30716-7

106 Hurvitz SA , Martin M , Jung KH , et al. Neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine and pertuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐positive breast cancer: three‐year outcomes from the phase III KRISTINE study . J Clin Oncol . 2019 ; 37 ( 25 ): 2206 ‐ 2216 . 31157583 10.1200/JCO.19.00882 PMC6774816

107 von Minckwitz G , Huang CS , Mano MS , et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2‐positive breast cancer . N Engl J Med . 2019 ; 380 ( 7 ): 617 ‐ 628 . 30516102 10.1056/NEJMoa1814017

108 Wu J , Fan D , Shao Z , et al. CACA guidelines for holistic integrative management of breast cancer . Holist Integr Oncol . 2022 ; 1 ( 1 ): 7 . 37520336 10.1007/s44178-022-00007-8 PMC9255514

109 Modi S , Saura C , Yamashita T , et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in previously treated HER2‐positive breast cancer . N Engl J Med . 2020 ; 382 ( 7 ): 610 ‐ 621 . 31825192 10.1056/NEJMoa1914510 PMC7458671

110 Keam SJ . Trastuzumab deruxtecan: first approval . Drugs . 2020 ; 80 ( 5 ): 501 ‐ 508 . 32144719 10.1007/s40265-020-01281-4

111 André F , Hee Park Y , Kim SB , et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer (DESTINY‐Breast02): a randomised, open‐label, multicentre, phase 3 trial . Lancet . 2023 ; 401 ( 10390 ): 1773 ‐ 1785 . 37086745 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00725-0

112 Hurvitz SA , Hegg R , Chung WP , et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer: updated results from DESTINY‐Breast03, a randomised, open‐label, phase 3 trial . Lancet . 2023 ; 401 ( 10371 ): 105 ‐ 117 . 36495879 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02420-5

113 T‐DXd: new standard for HER2‐low breast cancer . Cancer Discov . 2022 ; 12 ( 8 ): 1828 . 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-NB2022-0043 35666611

114 Narayan P , Dilawari A , Osgood C , et al. US Food and Drug Administration approval summary: fam‐trastuzumab deruxtecan‐nxki for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐low unresectable or metastatic breast cancer . J Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 41 ( 11 ): 2108 ‐ 2116 . 36780610 10.1200/JCO.22.02447

115 Mosele F , Deluche E , Lusque A , et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in metastatic breast cancer with variable HER2 expression: the phase 2 DAISY trial . Nat Med . 2023 ; 29 ( 8 ): 2110 ‐ 2120 . 37488289 10.1038/s41591-023-02478-2 PMC10427426

116 Hotta K , Aoe K , Kozuki T , et al. A phase II study of trastuzumab emtansine in HER2‐positive non‐small cell lung cancer . J Thorac Oncol . 2018 ; 13 ( 2 ): 273 ‐ 279 . 29313813 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.10.032

117 Peters S , Stahel R , Bubendorf L , et al. Trastuzumab emtansine (T‐DM1) in patients with previously treated HER2‐overexpressing metastatic non‐small cell lung cancer: efficacy, safety, and biomarkers . Clin Cancer Res . 2019 ; 25 ( 1 ): 64 ‐ 72 . 30206164 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1590

118 Tsurutani J , Iwata H , Krop I , et al. Targeting HER2 with trastuzumab deruxtecan: a dose‐expansion, phase I study in multiple advanced solid tumors . Cancer Discov . 2020 ; 10 ( 5 ): 688 ‐ 701 . 32213540 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-1014 PMC8292921

119 Li BT , Smit EF , Goto Y , et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2‐mutant non‐small‐cell lung cancer . N Engl J Med . 2022 ; 386 ( 3 ): 241 ‐ 251 . 34534430 10.1056/NEJMoa2112431 PMC9066448

120 Goto K , Goto Y , Kubo T , et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2‐mutant metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer: primary results from the randomized, phase II DESTINY‐Lung02 trial . J Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 41 ( 31 ): 4852 ‐ 4863 . 37694347 10.1200/JCO.23.01361 PMC10617843

121 Doi T , Shitara K , Naito Y , et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumour activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS‐8201), a HER2‐targeting antibody‐drug conjugate, in patients with advanced breast and gastric or gastro‐oesophageal tumours: a phase 1 dose‐escalation study . Lancet Oncol . 2017 ; 18 ( 11 ): 1512 ‐ 1522 . 29037983 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30604-6

122 Shitara K , Iwata H , Takahashi S , et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS‐8201a) in patients with advanced HER2‐positive gastric cancer: a dose‐expansion, phase 1 study . Lancet Oncol . 2019 ; 20 ( 6 ): 827 ‐ 836 . 31047804 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30088-9

123 Yamaguchi K , Bang YJ , Iwasa S , et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in anti‐human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 treatment‐naive patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐low gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: exploratory cohort results in a phase II trial . J Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 41 ( 4 ): 816 ‐ 825 . 36379002 10.1200/JCO.22.00575 PMC9901967

124 Cytryn SL , Janjigian YY . HER2 targeting in esophagogastric cancer: redefining the landscape and breaking barriers . J Natl Compr Canc Netw . 2023 ; 21 ( 4 ): 423 ‐ 429 . 37015333 10.6004/jnccn.2023.7010

125 Xu Y , Wang Y , Gong J , et al. Phase I study of the recombinant humanized anti‐HER2 monoclonal antibody‐MMAE conjugate RC48‐ADC in patients with HER2‐positive advanced solid tumors . Gastric Cancer . 2021 ; 24 ( 4 ): 913 ‐ 925 . 33945049 10.1007/s10120-021-01168-7 PMC8205919

126 Peng Z , Liu T , Wei J , et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel anti‐HER2 therapeutic antibody RC48 in patients with HER2‐overexpressing, locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: a single‐arm phase II study . Cancer Commun (Lond) . 2021 ; 41 ( 11 ): 1173 ‐ 1182 . 34665942 10.1002/cac2.12214 PMC8626607

127 Wang Y , Gong J , Wang A , et al. Disitamab vedotin (RC48) plus toripalimab for HER2‐expressing advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction and other solid tumours: a multicentre, open label, dose escalation and expansion phase 1 trial . EClinicalMedicine . 2024 ; 68 : 102415 . 38235421 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102415 PMC10789637

128 Sartore‐Bianchi A , Lonardi S , Martino C , et al. Pertuzumab and trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2‐amplified metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase II HERACLES‐B trial . ESMO Open . 2020 ; 5 ( 5 ): e000911 . 32988996 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000911 PMC7523198

129 Siena S , Di Bartolomeo M , Raghav K , et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS‐8201) in patients with HER2‐expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (DESTINY‐CRC01): a multicentre, open‐label, phase 2 trial . Lancet Oncol . 2021 ; 22 ( 6 ): 779 ‐ 789 . 33961795 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00086-3

130 Yoshino T , Di Bartolomeo M , Raghav K , et al. Final results of DESTINY‐CRC01 investigating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2‐expressing metastatic colorectal cancer . Nat Commun . 2023 ; 14 ( 1 ): 3332 . 37286557 10.1038/s41467-023-38032-4 PMC10247780

131 de Vries EGE , Rüschoff J , Lolkema M , et al. Phase II study (KAMELEON) of single‐agent T‐DM1 in patients with HER2‐positive advanced urothelial bladder cancer or pancreatic cancer/cholangiocarcinoma . Cancer Med . 2023 ; 12 ( 11 ): 12071 ‐ 12083 . 37119523 10.1002/cam4.5893 PMC10278525

132 Meric‐Bernstam F , Makker V , Oaknin A , et al. Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2‐expressing solid tumors: primary results from the DESTINY‐PanTumor02 phase II trial . J Clin Oncol . 2024 ; 42 ( 1 ): 47 ‐ 58 . 37870536 10.1200/JCO.23.02005 PMC10730032

133 Lenárt S , Lenárt P , Šmarda J , Remšík J , Souček K , Beneš P . Trop2: jack of all trades, master of none . Cancers (Basel) . 2020 ; 12 ( 11 ): 3328 . 33187148 10.3390/cancers12113328 PMC7696911

134 Zeng P , Chen MB , Zhou LN , Tang M , Liu CY , Lu PH . Impact of TROP2 expression on prognosis in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta‐analysis . Sci Rep . 2016 ; 6 : 33658 . 27645103 10.1038/srep33658 PMC5028884

135 Dum D , Taherpour N , Menz A , et al. Trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 expression in human tumors: a tissue microarray study on 18,563 tumors . Pathobiology . 2022 ; 89 ( 4 ): 245 ‐ 258 . 35477165 10.1159/000522206 PMC9393818

136 Wen Y , Ouyang D , Zou Q , et al. A literature review of the promising future of TROP2: a potential drug therapy target . Ann Transl Med . 2022 ; 10 ( 24 ): 1403 . 36660684 10.21037/atm-22-5976 PMC9843409

137 Bardia A , Messersmith WA , Kio EA , et al. Sacituzumab govitecan, a Trop‐2‐directed antibody‐drug conjugate, for patients with epithelial cancer: final safety and efficacy results from the phase I/II IMMU‐132‐01 basket trial . Ann Oncol . 2021 ; 32 ( 6 ): 746 ‐ 756 . 33741442 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.03.005

138 Cardillo TM , Govindan SV , Sharkey RM , et al. Sacituzumab govitecan (IMMU‐132), an anti‐trop‐2/SN‐38 antibody‐drug conjugate: characterization and efficacy in pancreatic, gastric, and other cancers . Bioconjug Chem . 2015 ; 26 ( 5 ): 919 ‐ 931 . 25915780 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.5b00223

139 Starodub AN , Ocean AJ , Shah MA , et al. First‐in‐human trial of a novel anti‐trop‐2 antibody‐SN‐38 conjugate, sacituzumab govitecan, for the treatment of diverse metastatic solid tumors . Clin Cancer Res . 2015 ; 21 ( 17 ): 3870 ‐ 3878 . 25944802 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-3321 PMC4558321

140 Heist RS , Guarino MJ , Masters G , et al. Therapy of advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer with an SN‐38‐anti‐Trop‐2 drug conjugate, sacituzumab govitecan . J Clin Oncol . 2017 ; 35 ( 24 ): 2790 ‐ 2797 . 28548889 10.1200/JCO.2016.72.1894

141 Gray JE , Heist RS , Starodub AN , et al. Therapy of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with a topoisomerase‐I‐inhibiting antibody‐drug conjugate (ADC) targeting Trop‐2, sacituzumab govitecan . Clin Cancer Res . 2017 ; 23 ( 19 ): 5711 ‐ 5719 . 28679770 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0933

142 Loriot Y , Petrylak DP , Rezazadeh Kalebasty A , et al. TROPHY‐U‐01, a phase II open‐label study of sacituzumab govitecan in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma progressing after platinum‐based chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors: updated safety and efficacy outcomes . Ann Oncol . 2024 ; 35 ( 4 ): 392 ‐ 401 . 38244927 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.01.002

143 Kalinsky K , Diamond JR , Vahdat LT , et al. Sacituzumab govitecan in previously treated hormone receptor‐positive/HER2‐negative metastatic breast cancer: final results from a phase I/II, single‐arm, basket trial . Ann Oncol . 2020 ; 31 ( 12 ): 1709 ‐ 1718 . 32946924 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.09.004

144 Cheng Y , Yuan X , Tian Q , et al. Preclinical profiles of SKB264, a novel anti‐TROP2 antibody conjugated to topoisomerase inhibitor, demonstrated promising antitumor efficacy compared to IMMU‐132 . Front Oncol . 2022 ; 12 : 951589 . 36620535 10.3389/fonc.2022.951589 PMC9817100

145 Okajima D , Yasuda S , Maejima T , et al. Datopotamab deruxtecan, a novel TROP2‐directed antibody‐drug conjugate, demonstrates potent antitumor activity by efficient drug delivery to tumor cells . Mol Cancer Ther . 2021 ; 20 ( 12 ): 2329 ‐ 2340 . 34413126 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-21-0206 PMC9398094

146 Bardia A , Mayer IA , Diamond JR , et al. Efficacy and safety of anti‐Trop‐2 antibody drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (IMMU‐132) in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic triple‐negative breast cancer . J Clin Oncol . 2017 ; 35 ( 19 ): 2141 ‐ 2148 . 28291390 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.8297 PMC5559902

147 Wahby S , Fashoyin‐Aje L , Osgood CL , et al. FDA Approval summary: accelerated approval of sacituzumab govitecan‐hziy for third‐line treatment of metastatic triple‐negative breast cancer . Clin Cancer Res . 2021 ; 27 ( 7 ): 1850 ‐ 1854 . 33168656 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-3119

148 Bardia A , Hurvitz SA , Tolaney SM , et al. Sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple‐negative breast cancer . N Engl J Med . 2021 ; 384 ( 16 ): 1529 ‐ 1541 . 33882206 10.1056/NEJMoa2028485

149 Rugo HS , Bardia A , Marmé F , et al. Sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor‐positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐negative metastatic breast cancer . J Clin Oncol . 2022 ; 40 ( 29 ): 3365 ‐ 3376 . 36027558 10.1200/JCO.22.01002

150 Tagawa ST , Balar AV , Petrylak DP , et al. TROPHY‐U‐01: a phase II open‐label study of sacituzumab govitecan in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma progressing after platinum‐based chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors . J Clin Oncol . 2021 ; 39 ( 22 ): 2474 ‐ 2485 . 33929895 10.1200/JCO.20.03489 PMC8315301

151 Shimizu T , Sands J , Yoh K , et al. First‐in‐human, phase I dose‐escalation and dose‐expansion study of trophoblast cell‐surface antigen 2‐directed antibody‐drug conjugate datopotamab deruxtecan in non‐small‐cell lung cancer: tROPION‐PanTumor01 . J Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 41 ( 29 ): 4678 ‐ 4687 . 37327461 10.1200/JCO.23.00059 PMC10564307

152 Meric‐Bernstam F , Spira AI , Lisberg AE , et al. TROPION‐PanTumor01: dose analysis of the TROP2‐directed antibody‐drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato‐DXd, DS‐1062) for the treatment (Tx) of advanced or metastatic non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) . J Clin Oncol . 2021 ; 39 ( 15 ): 9058 ‐ 9058 . suppl.

153 Majumder A , Sandhu M , Banerji D , Steri V , Olshen A , Moasser MM . The role of HER2 and HER3 in HER2‐amplified cancers beyond breast cancers . Sci Rep . 2021 ; 11 ( 1 ): 9091 . 33907275 10.1038/s41598-021-88683-w PMC8079373

154 Jura N , Shan Y , Cao X , Shaw DE , Kuriyan J . Structural analysis of the catalytically inactive kinase domain of the human EGF receptor 3 . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 2009 ; 106 ( 51 ): 21608 ‐ 21613 . 20007378 10.1073/pnas.0912101106 PMC2791034

155 Montero JC , Rodríguez‐Barrueco R , Ocaña A , Díaz‐Rodríguez E , Esparís‐Ogando A , Pandiella A . Neuregulins and cancer . Clin Cancer Res . 2008 ; 14 ( 11 ): 3237 ‐ 3241 . 18519747 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-5133

156 Alimandi M , Romano A , Curia MC , et al. Cooperative signaling of ErbB3 and ErbB2 in neoplastic transformation and human mammary carcinomas . Oncogene . 1995 ; 10 ( 9 ): 1813 ‐ 1821 . 7538656

157 Engelman JA , Zejnullahu K , Mitsudomi T , et al. MET amplification leads to gefitinib resistance in lung cancer by activating ERBB3 signaling . Science . 2007 ; 316 ( 5827 ): 1039 ‐ 1043 . 17463250 10.1126/science.1141478

158 Kunii K , Davis L , Gorenstein J , et al. FGFR2‐amplified gastric cancer cell lines require FGFR2 and Erbb3 signaling for growth and survival . Cancer Res . 2008 ; 68 ( 7 ): 2340 ‐ 2348 . 18381441 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-5229

159 Liu J , Kern JA . Neuregulin‐1 activates the JAK‐STAT pathway and regulates lung epithelial cell proliferation . Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol . 2002 ; 27 ( 3 ): 306 ‐ 313 . 12204892 10.1165/rcmb.4850

160 Suenaga A , Takada N , Hatakeyama M , et al. Novel mechanism of interaction of p85 subunit of phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase and ErbB3 receptor‐derived phosphotyrosyl peptides . J Biol Chem . 2005 ; 280 ( 2 ): 1321 ‐ 1326 . 15520002 10.1074/jbc.M410436200

161 Xu B , Huo Z , Huang H , et al. The expression and prognostic value of the epidermal growth factor receptor family in glioma . BMC Cancer . 2021 ; 21 ( 1 ): 451 . 33892666 10.1186/s12885-021-08150-7 PMC8063311

162 Kim H , Choi JY , Rah YC , et al. ErbB3, a possible prognostic factor of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma . Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol . 2020 ; 129 ( 4 ): 377 ‐ 387 . 32081558 10.1016/j.oooo.2019.12.006

163 Hashimoto Y , Koyama K , Kamai Y , et al. A novel HER3‐targeting antibody‐drug conjugate, U3‐1402, exhibits potent therapeutic efficacy through the delivery of cytotoxic payload by efficient internalization . Clin Cancer Res . 2019 ; 25 ( 23 ): 7151 ‐ 7161 . 31471314 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1745

164 Koganemaru S , Kuboki Y , Koga Y , et al. U3‐1402, a novel HER3‐targeting antibody‐drug conjugate, for the treatment of colorectal cancer . Mol Cancer Ther . 2019 ; 18 ( 11 ): 2043 ‐ 2050 . 31395690 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-0452

165 Haratani K , Yonesaka K , Takamura S , et al. U3‐1402 sensitizes HER3‐expressing tumors to PD‐1 blockade by immune activation . J Clin Invest . 2020 ; 130 ( 1 ): 374 ‐ 388 . 31661465 10.1172/JCI126598 PMC6934205

166 Jänne PA , Baik C , Su WC , et al. Efficacy and safety of patritumab deruxtecan (HER3‐DXd) in EGFR inhibitor‐resistant, EGFR‐mutated non‐small cell lung cancer . Cancer Discov . 2022 ; 12 ( 1 ): 74 ‐ 89 . 34548309 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-0715 PMC9401524

167 Yu HA , Goto Y , Hayashi H , et al. HERTHENA‐Lung01, a phase II trial of patritumab deruxtecan (HER3‐DXd) in epidermal growth factor receptor‐mutated non‐small‐cell lung cancer after epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy and platinum‐based chemotherapy . J Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 41 ( 35 ): 5363 ‐ 5375 . 37689979 10.1200/JCO.23.01476 PMC10713116

168 Yu HA , Yang JC , Hayashi H , et al. HERTHENA‐Lung01: a phase II study of patritumab deruxtecan (HER3‐DXd) in previously treated metastatic EGFR‐mutated NSCLC . Future Oncol . 2023 ; 19 ( 19 ): 1319 ‐ 1329 . 37212796 10.2217/fon-2022-1250

169 Coleman N , Yap TA , Heymach JV , Meric‐Bernstam F , Le X . Antibody‐drug conjugates in lung cancer: dawn of a new era? NPJ Precis Oncol . 2023 ; 7 ( 1 ): 5 . 36631624 10.1038/s41698-022-00338-9 PMC9834242

170 Mok T , Jänne PA , Nishio M , et al. HERTHENA‐Lung02: phase III study of patritumab deruxtecan in advanced EGFR‐mutated NSCLC after a third‐generation EGFR TKI . Future Oncol . 2024 ; 20 ( 15 ): 969 ‐ 980 . 38095056 10.2217/fon-2023-0602

171 Oliveira M , Falato C , Cejalvo JM , et al. Patritumab deruxtecan in untreated hormone receptor‐positive/HER2‐negative early breast cancer: final results from part A of the window‐of‐opportunity SOLTI TOT‐HER3 pre‐operative study . Ann Oncol . 2023 ; 34 ( 8 ): 670 ‐ 680 . 37211044 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.05.004

172 Pascual T , Oliveira M , Ciruelos E , et al. SOLTI‐1805 TOT‐HER3 study concept: a window‐of‐opportunity trial of patritumab deruxtecan, a HER3 directed antibody drug conjugate, in patients with early breast cancer . Front Oncol . 2021 ; 11 : 638482 . 33968735 10.3389/fonc.2021.638482 PMC8103897

173 Krop IE , Masuda N , Mukohara T , et al. Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3‐DXd), a human epidermal growth factor receptor 3‐directed antibody‐drug conjugate, in patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 3‐expressing metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter, phase I/II trial . J Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 41 ( 36 ): 5550 ‐ 5560 . 37801674 10.1200/JCO.23.00882 PMC10730028

174 Sabbah DA , Hajjo R , Sweidan K . Review on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) structure, signaling pathways, interactions, and recent updates of EGFR inhibitors . Curr Top Med Chem . 2020 ; 20 ( 10 ): 815 ‐ 834 . 32124699 10.2174/1568026620666200303123102

175 Normanno N , De Luca A , Bianco C , et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling in cancer . Gene . 2006 ; 366 ( 1 ): 2 ‐ 16 . 16377102 10.1016/j.gene.2005.10.018

176 Levantini E , Maroni G , Del Re M , Tenen DG . EGFR signaling pathway as therapeutic target in human cancers . Semin Cancer Biol . 2022 ; 85 : 253 ‐ 275 . 35427766 10.1016/j.semcancer.2022.04.002

177 Singh S , Sadhukhan S , Sonawane A . 20 years since the approval of first EGFR‐TKI, gefitinib: insight and foresight . Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer . 2023 ; 1878 ( 6 ): 188967 . 37657684 10.1016/j.bbcan.2023.188967

178 Hsu R , Benjamin DJ . A narrative review of antibody‐drug conjugates in EGFR‐mutated non‐small cell lung cancer . Front Oncol . 2023 ; 13 : 1252652 . 38107063 10.3389/fonc.2023.1252652 PMC10722249

179 Yu J , Fang T , Yun C , Liu X , Cai X . Antibody‐drug conjugates targeting the human epidermal growth factor receptor family in cancers . Front Mol Biosci . 2022 ; 9 : 847835 . 35295841 10.3389/fmolb.2022.847835 PMC8919033

180 Phillips AC , Boghaert ER , Vaidya KS , et al. ABT‐414, an antibody–drug conjugate targeting a tumor‐selective EGFR epitope . Mol Cancer Ther . 2016 ; 15 ( 4 ): 661 ‐ 669 . 26846818 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0901

181 van den Bent M , Gan HK , Lassman AB , et al. Efficacy of depatuxizumab mafodotin (ABT‐414) monotherapy in patients with EGFR‐amplified, recurrent glioblastoma: results from a multi‐center, international study . Cancer Chemother Pharmacol . 2017 ; 80 ( 6 ): 1209 ‐ 1217 . 29075855 10.1007/s00280-017-3451-1 PMC5686264

182 R‐Xu H , M‐Z Qiu , Zhang Y , Wei X‐L , Hu C . First‐in‐human dose‐escalation study of anti‐EGFR ADC MRG003 in patients with relapsed/refractory solid tumors . J Clin Oncol . 2020 ; 38 ( 15 ): 3550 ‐ 3550 . suppl.

183 Qiu MZ , Zhang Y , Guo Y , et al. Evaluation of safety of treatment with anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor antibody drug conjugate MRG003 in patients with advanced solid tumors: a phase 1 nonrandomized clinical trial . JAMA Oncol . 2022 ; 8 ( 7 ): 1042 ‐ 1046 . 35511148 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0503 PMC9073657

184 Jangphattananont N , Sato H , Imamura R , et al. Distinct localization of mature HGF from its precursor form in developing and repairing the stomach . Int J Mol Sci . 2019 ; 20 ( 12 ): 2955 . 31212972 10.3390/ijms20122955 PMC6628191

185 Liu X , Sun R , Chen J , et al. Crosstalk mechanisms between HGF/c‐Met axis and ncRNAs in malignancy . Front Cell Dev Biol . 2020 ; 8 : 23 . 32083078 10.3389/fcell.2020.00023 PMC7004951

186 Lam BQ , Dai L , Qin Z . The role of HGF/c‐MET signaling pathway in lymphoma . J Hematol Oncol . 2016 ; 9 ( 1 ): 135 . 27923392 10.1186/s13045-016-0366-y PMC5141645

187 Fu J , Su X , Li Z , et al. HGF/c‐MET pathway in cancer: from molecular characterization to clinical evidence . Oncogene . 2021 ; 40 ( 28 ): 4625 ‐ 4651 . 34145400 10.1038/s41388-021-01863-w

188 Mohan CD , Shanmugam MK , Gowda SGS , Chinnathambi A , Rangappa KS , Sethi G . c‐MET pathway in human malignancies and its targeting by natural compounds for cancer therapy . Phytomedicine . 2024 ; 128 : 155379 . 38503157 10.1016/j.phymed.2024.155379

189 Zhao Y , Ye W , Wang YD , Chen WD . HGF/c‐Met: a key promoter in liver regeneration . Front Pharmacol . 2022 ; 13 : 808855 . 35370682 10.3389/fphar.2022.808855 PMC8968572

190 Que W , Chen J , Chuang M , Jiang D . Knockdown of c‐Met enhances sensitivity to bortezomib in human multiple myeloma U266 cells via inhibiting Akt/mTOR activity . Apmis . 2012 ; 120 ( 3 ): 195 ‐ 203 . 22339676 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2011.02836.x

191 Mer AH , Mirzaei Y , Misamogooe F , et al. Progress of antibody‐drug conjugates (ADCs) targeting c‐Met in cancer therapy; insights from clinical and preclinical studies . Drug Deliv Transl Res . 2024 . 10.1007/s13346-024-01564-3 38597995

192 Strickler JH , Weekes CD , Nemunaitis J , et al. First‐in‐human phase I, dose‐escalation and ‐expansion study of telisotuzumab vedotin, an antibody‐drug conjugate targeting c‐Met, in patients with advanced solid tumors . J Clin Oncol . 2018 ; 36 ( 33 ): 3298 ‐ 3306 . 30285518 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.7697

193 Camidge DR , Morgensztern D , Heist RS , et al. Phase I study of 2‐ or 3‐week dosing of telisotuzumab vedotin, an antibody‐drug conjugate targeting c‐Met, monotherapy in patients with advanced non‐small cell lung carcinoma . Clin Cancer Res . 2021 ; 27 ( 21 ): 5781 ‐ 5792 . 34426443 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0765 PMC9401525

194 Waqar SN , Redman MW , Arnold SM , et al. A phase II study of telisotuzumab vedotin in patients with c‐MET‐positive stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancer (LUNG‐MAP Sub‐study S1400K, NCT03574753 ) . Clin Lung Cancer . 2021 ; 22 ( 3 ): 170 ‐ 177 . 33221175 10.1016/j.cllc.2020.09.013 PMC8044254

195 Camidge DR , Barlesi F , Goldman JW , et al. Phase Ib study of telisotuzumab vedotin in combination with erlotinib in patients with c‐Met protein‐expressing non‐small‐cell lung cancer . J Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 41 ( 5 ): 1105 ‐ 1115 . 36288547 10.1200/JCO.22.00739 PMC9928626

196 Reymond N , Fabre S , Lecocq E , Adelaïde J , Dubreuil P , Lopez M . Nectin4/PRR4, a new afadin‐associated member of the nectin family that trans‐interacts with nectin1/PRR1 through V domain interaction . J Biol Chem . 2001 ; 276 ( 46 ): 43205 ‐ 43215 . 11544254 10.1074/jbc.M103810200

197 Samanta D , Almo SC . Nectin family of cell‐adhesion molecules: structural and molecular aspects of function and specificity . Cell Mol Life Sci . 2015 ; 72 ( 4 ): 645 ‐ 658 . 25326769 10.1007/s00018-014-1763-4 PMC11113404

198 Takai Y , Miyoshi J , Ikeda W , Ogita H . Nectins and nectin‐like molecules: roles in contact inhibition of cell movement and proliferation . Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol . 2008 ; 9 ( 8 ): 603 ‐ 615 . 18648374 10.1038/nrm2457

199 Fabre S , Reymond N , Cocchi F , et al. Prominent role of the Ig‐like V domain in trans‐interactions of nectins. Nectin3 and nectin 4 bind to the predicted C‐C'‐C"‐D beta‐strands of the nectin1 V domain . J Biol Chem . 2002 ; 277 ( 30 ): 27006 ‐ 27013 . 12011057 10.1074/jbc.M203228200

200 Liu R , Zhao K , Wang K , et al. Prognostic value of nectin‐4 in human cancers: a meta‐analysis . Front Oncol . 2023 ; 13 : 1081655 . 36937394 10.3389/fonc.2023.1081655 PMC10020226

201 Deng H , Shi H , Chen L , Zhou Y , Jiang J . Over‐expression of Nectin‐4 promotes progression of esophageal cancer and correlates with poor prognosis of the patients . Cancer Cell Int . 2019 ; 19 : 106 . 31043861 10.1186/s12935-019-0824-z PMC6480822

202 M‐Rabet MR , Cabaud O , Josselin E , et al. Nectin‐4: a new prognostic biomarker for efficient therapeutic targeting of primary and metastatic triple‐negative breast cancer . Ann Oncol . 2017 ; 28 ( 4 ): 769 ‐ 776 . 27998973 10.1093/annonc/mdw678

203 Mayer M , Nachtsheim L , Prinz J , et al. Nectin‐4 is frequently expressed in primary salivary gland cancer and corresponding lymph node metastases and represents an important treatment‐related biomarker . Clin Exp Metastasis . 2023 ; 40 ( 5 ): 395 ‐ 405 . 37480387 10.1007/s10585-023-10222-w PMC10495532

204 Nishiwada S , Sho M , Yasuda S , et al. Nectin‐4 expression contributes to tumor proliferation, angiogenesis and patient prognosis in human pancreatic cancer . J Exp Clin Cancer Res . 2015 ; 34 ( 1 ): 30 . 25888293 10.1186/s13046-015-0144-7 PMC4387735

205 Chang HK , Park YH , Choi JA , et al. Nectin‐4 as a predictive marker for poor prognosis of endometrial cancer with mismatch repair impairment . Cancers (Basel) . 2023 ; 15 ( 10 ): 2865 . 37345201 10.3390/cancers15102865 PMC10216516

206 Takano A , Ishikawa N , Nishino R , et al. Identification of nectin‐4 oncoprotein as a and therapeutic target for lung cancer . Cancer Res . 2009 ; 69 ( 16 ): 6694 ‐ 6703 . 19679554 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0016

207 Zhang Y , Zhang J , Shen Q , et al. High expression of Nectin‐4 is associated with unfavorable prognosis in gastric cancer . Oncol Lett . 2018 ; 15 ( 6 ): 8789 ‐ 8795 . 29805618 10.3892/ol.2018.8365 PMC5950544

208 Tomiyama E , Fujita K , Rodriguez Pena MDC , et al. Expression of Nectin‐4 and PD‐L1 in upper tract urothelial carcinoma . Int J Mol Sci . 2020 ; 21 ( 15 ): 5390 . 32751328 10.3390/ijms21155390 PMC7432817

209 Chatterjee S , Sinha S , Kundu CN . Nectin cell adhesion molecule‐4 (NECTIN‐4): a potential target for cancer therapy . Eur J Pharmacol . 2021 ; 911 : 174516 . 34547246 10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.174516

210 Zhang Y , Liu S , Wang L , et al. A novel PI3K/AKT signaling axis mediates Nectin‐4‐induced gallbladder cancer cell proliferation, metastasis and tumor growth . Cancer Lett . 2016 ; 375 ( 1 ): 179 ‐ 189 . 26949052 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.02.049

211 Zhang Y , Chen P , Yin W , Ji Y , Shen Q , Ni Q . Nectin‐4 promotes gastric cancer progression via the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway . Hum Pathol . 2018 ; 72 : 107 ‐ 116 . 29208564 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.10.034

212 Doronina SO , Toki BE , Torgov MY , et al. Development of potent monoclonal antibody auristatin conjugates for cancer therapy . Nat Biotechnol . 2003 ; 21 ( 7 ): 778 ‐ 784 . 12778055 10.1038/nbt832

213 Challita‐Eid PM , Satpayev D , Yang P , et al. Enfortumab vedotin antibody‐drug conjugate targeting nectin‐4 is a highly potent therapeutic agent in multiple preclinical cancer models . Cancer Res . 2016 ; 76 ( 10 ): 3003 ‐ 3013 . 27013195 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1313

214 Rosenberg J , Sridhar SS , Zhang J , et al. EV‐101: a phase I study of single‐agent enfortumab vedotin in patients with Nectin‐4‐positive solid tumors, including metastatic urothelial carcinoma . J Clin Oncol . 2020 ; 38 ( 10 ): 1041 ‐ 1049 . 32031899 10.1200/JCO.19.02044 PMC7106979

215 Rosenberg JE , O'Donnell PH , Balar AV , et al. Pivotal trial of enfortumab vedotin in urothelial carcinoma after platinum and anti‐programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 therapy . J Clin Oncol . 2019 ; 37 ( 29 ): 2592 ‐ 2600 . 31356140 10.1200/JCO.19.01140 PMC6784850

216 Yu EY , Petrylak DP , O'Donnell PH , et al. Enfortumab vedotin after PD‐1 or PD‐L1 inhibitors in cisplatin‐ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (EV‑201): a multicentre, single‐arm, phase 2 trial . Lancet Oncol . 2021 ; 22 ( 6 ): 872 ‐ 882 . 33991512 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00094-2

217 Powles T , Rosenberg JE , Sonpavde GP , et al. Enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma . N Engl J Med . 2021 ; 384 ( 12 ): 1125 ‐ 1135 . 33577729 10.1056/NEJMoa2035807 PMC8450892

218 Rosenberg JE , Powles T , Sonpavde GP , et al. EV‐301 long‐term outcomes: 24‐month findings from the phase III trial of enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma . Ann Oncol . 2023 ; 34 ( 11 ): 1047 ‐ 1054 . 37678672 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.08.016

219 Powles T , Valderrama BP , Gupta S , et al. Enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab in untreated advanced urothelial cancer . N Engl J Med . 2024 ; 390 ( 10 ): 875 ‐ 888 . 38446675 10.1056/NEJMoa2312117

220 Thomas J , Klebanov A , John S , et al. CEACAMS 1, 5, and 6 in disease and cancer: interactions with pathogens . Genes Cancer . 2023 ; 14 : 12 ‐ 29 . 36741860 10.18632/genesandcancer.230 PMC9891707

221 Sack TL , Gum JR , Low MG , Kim YS . Release of carcinoembryonic antigen from human colon cancer cells by phosphatidylinositol‐specific phospholipase C . J Clin Invest . 1988 ; 82 ( 2 ): 586 ‐ 593 . 3042807 10.1172/JCI113636 PMC303552

222 Pakdel A , Naghibalhossaini F , Mokarram P , Jaberipour M , Hosseini A . Regulation of carcinoembryonic antigen release from colorectal cancer cells . Mol Biol Rep . 2012 ; 39 ( 4 ): 3695 ‐ 3704 . 21725636 10.1007/s11033-011-1144-0

223 Hefta SA , Hefta LJ , Lee TD , Paxton RJ , Shively JE . Carcinoembryonic antigen is anchored to membranes by covalent attachment to a glycosylphosphatidylinositol moiety: identification of the ethanolamine linkage site . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 1988 ; 85 ( 13 ): 4648 ‐ 4652 . 3387431 10.1073/pnas.85.13.4648 PMC280492

224 Kim KS , Kim JT , Lee SJ , et al. Overexpression and clinical significance of carcinoembryonic antigen‐related cell adhesion molecule 6 in colorectal cancer . Clin Chim Acta . 2013 ; 415 : 12 ‐ 19 . 22975528 10.1016/j.cca.2012.09.003

225 Hammarström S . The carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) family: structures, suggested functions and expression in normal and malignant tissues . Semin Cancer Biol . 1999 ; 9 ( 2 ): 67 ‐ 81 . 10202129 10.1006/scbi.1998.0119

226 Jothy S , Yuan SY , Shirota K . Transcription of carcinoembryonic antigen in normal colon and colon carcinoma. In situ hybridization study and implication for a new in vivo functional model . Am J Pathol . 1993 ; 143 ( 1 ): 250 ‐ 257 . 8317550 PMC1886969

227 Kodera Y , Isobe K , Yamauchi M , et al. Expression of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and nonspecific crossreacting antigen (NCA) in gastrointestinal cancer; the correlation with degree of differentiation . Br J Cancer . 1993 ; 68 ( 1 ): 130 ‐ 136 . 8318403 10.1038/bjc.1993.300 PMC1968295

228 Beauchemin N , Arabzadeh A . Carcinoembryonic antigen‐related cell adhesion molecules (CEACAMs) in cancer progression and metastasis . Cancer Metastasis Rev . 2013 ; 32 ( 3‐4 ): 643 ‐ 671 . 23903773 10.1007/s10555-013-9444-6

229 Decary S , Berne PF , Nicolazzi C , et al. Preclinical activity of SAR408701: a novel anti‐CEACAM5‐maytansinoid antibody‐drug conjugate for the treatment of CEACAM5‐positive epithelial tumors . Clin Cancer Res . 2020 ; 26 ( 24 ): 6589 ‐ 6599 . 33046521 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-4051

230 Gazzah A , Bedard PL , Hierro C , et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of the anti‐CEACAM5‐DM4 antibody‐drug conjugate tusamitamab ravtansine (SAR408701) in patients with advanced solid tumors: first‐in‐human dose‐escalation study . Ann Oncol . 2022 ; 33 ( 4 ): 416 ‐ 425 . 35026412 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.12.012

231 Unruh D , Horbinski C . Beyond thrombosis: the impact of tissue factor signaling in cancer . J Hematol Oncol . 2020 ; 13 ( 1 ): 93 . 32665005 10.1186/s13045-020-00932-z PMC7362520

232 Bajaj MS , Birktoft JJ , Steer SA , Bajaj SP . Structure and biology of tissue factor pathway inhibitor . Thromb Haemost . 2001 ; 86 ( 4 ): 959 ‐ 972 . 11686353

233 Kocatürk B , Van den Berg YW , Tieken C , et al. Alternatively spliced tissue factor promotes breast cancer growth in a β1 integrin‐dependent manner . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 2013 ; 110 ( 28 ): 11517 ‐ 11522 . 23801760 10.1073/pnas.1307100110 PMC3710867

234 Versteeg HH , Spek CA , Slofstra SH , Diks SH , Richel DJ , Peppelenbosch MP . FVIIa:tF induces cell survival via G12/G13‐dependent Jak/STAT activation and BclXL production . Circ Res . 2004 ; 94 ( 8 ): 1032 ‐ 1040 . 15016732 10.1161/01.RES.0000125625.18597.AD

235 Nakasaki T , Wada H , Shigemori C , et al. Expression of tissue factor and vascular endothelial growth factor is associated with angiogenesis in colorectal cancer . Am J Hematol . 2002 ; 69 ( 4 ): 247 ‐ 254 . 11921018 10.1002/ajh.10061

236 Yin YJ , Salah Z , Maoz M , et al. Oncogenic transformation induces tumor angiogenesis: a role for PAR1 activation . Faseb J . 2003 ; 17 ( 2 ): 163 ‐ 174 . 12554695 10.1096/fj.02-0316com

237 Milsom C , Magnus N , Meehan B , Al‐Nedawi K , Garnier D , Rak J . Tissue factor and cancer stem cells: is there a linkage? Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol . 2009 ; 29 ( 12 ): 2005 ‐ 2014 . 19628788 10.1161/ATVBAHA.108.177444

238 Poon RT , Lau CP , Ho JW , Yu WC , Fan ST , Wong J . Tissue factor expression correlates with tumor angiogenesis and invasiveness in human hepatocellular carcinoma . Clin Cancer Res . 2003 ; 9 ( 14 ): 5339 ‐ 5345 . 14614019

239 Mueller BM , Reisfeld RA , Edgington TS , Ruf W . Expression of tissue factor by melanoma cells promotes efficient hematogenous metastasis . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 1992 ; 89 ( 24 ): 11832 ‐ 11836 . 1465406 10.1073/pnas.89.24.11832 PMC50651

240 Bromberg ME , Konigsberg WH , Madison JF , Pawashe A , Garen A . Tissue factor promotes melanoma metastasis by a pathway independent of blood coagulation . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 1995 ; 92 ( 18 ): 8205 ‐ 8209 . 7667269 10.1073/pnas.92.18.8205 PMC41125

241 Breij EC , de Goeij BE , Verploegen S , et al. An antibody‐drug conjugate that targets tissue factor exhibits potent therapeutic activity against a broad range of solid tumors . Cancer Res . 2014 ; 74 ( 4 ): 1214 ‐ 1226 . 24371232 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-2440

242 de Bono JS , Concin N , Hong DS , et al. Tisotumab vedotin in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours (InnovaTV 201): a first‐in‐human, multicentre, phase 1–2 trial . Lancet Oncol . 2019 ; 20 ( 3 ): 383 ‐ 393 . 30745090 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30859-3

243 Markham A . Tisotumab vedotin: first approval . Drugs . 2021 ; 81 ( 18 ): 2141 ‐ 2147 . 34748188 10.1007/s40265-021-01633-8

244 Luhrs CA , Slomiany BL . A human membrane‐associated folate binding protein is anchored by a glycosyl‐phosphatidylinositol tail . J Biol Chem . 1989 ; 264 ( 36 ): 21446 ‐ 21449 . 2557328

245 Rothberg KG , Ying YS , Kolhouse JF , Kamen BA , Anderson RG . The glycophospholipid‐linked folate receptor internalizes folate without entering the clathrin‐coated pit endocytic pathway . J Cell Biol . 1990 ; 110 ( 3 ): 637 ‐ 649 . 1968465 10.1083/jcb.110.3.637 PMC2116044

246 Scaranti M , Cojocaru E , Banerjee S , Banerji U . Exploiting the folate receptor α in oncology . Nat Rev Clin Oncol . 2020 ; 17 ( 6 ): 349 ‐ 359 . 32152484 10.1038/s41571-020-0339-5

247 Yao C , Evans CO , Stevens VL , Owens TR , Oyesiku NM . Folate receptor alpha regulates cell proliferation in mouse gonadotroph alphaT3‐1 cells . Exp Cell Res . 2009 ; 315 ( 18 ): 3125 ‐ 3132 . 19446551 10.1016/j.yexcr.2009.05.006

248 Kelemen LE . The role of folate receptor alpha in cancer development, progression and treatment: cause, consequence or innocent bystander? Int J Cancer . 2006 ; 119 ( 2 ): 243 ‐ 250 . 16453285 10.1002/ijc.21712

249 Siu MK , Kong DS , Chan HY , et al. Paradoxical impact of two folate receptors, FRα and RFC, in ovarian cancer: effect on cell proliferation, invasion and clinical outcome . PLoS One . 2012 ; 7 ( 11 ): e47201 . 23144806 10.1371/journal.pone.0047201 PMC3492371

250 Toffoli G , Russo A , Gallo A , et al. Expression of folate binding protein as a prognostic factor for response to platinum‐containing chemotherapy and survival in human ovarian cancer . Int J Cancer . 1998 ; 79 ( 2 ): 121 ‐ 126 . 9583724 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19980417)79:2<121::aid-ijc4>3.0.co;2-v

251 Cheng X , Li J , Tanaka K , et al. MORAb‐202, an antibody‐drug conjugate utilizing humanized anti‐human FRα farletuzumab and the microtubule‐targeting agent eribulin, has potent antitumor activity . Mol Cancer Ther . 2018 ; 17 ( 12 ): 2665 ‐ 2675 . 30262588 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-1215

252 Shimizu T , Fujiwara Y , Yonemori K , et al. First‐in‐human phase 1 study of MORAb‐202, an antibody–drug conjugate comprising farletuzumab linked to eribulin mesylate, in patients with folate receptor‐α–positive advanced solid tumors . Clin Cancer Res . 2021 ; 27 ( 14 ): 3905 ‐ 3915 . 33926914 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4740

253 Matsunaga Y , Yamaoka T , Ohba M , et al. Novel anti‐FOLR1 antibody‐drug conjugate MORAb‐202 in breast cancer and non‐small cell lung cancer cells . Antibodies (Basel) . 2021 ; 10 ( 1 ): 6 . 33535554 10.3390/antib10010006 PMC7930947

254 Heo YA . Mirvetuximab soravtansine: first approval . Drugs . 2023 ; 83 ( 3 ): 265 ‐ 273 . 36656533 10.1007/s40265-023-01834-3

255 Ab O , Whiteman KR , Bartle LM , et al. IMGN853, a folate receptor‐α (FRα)‐targeting antibody‐drug conjugate, exhibits potent targeted antitumor activity against FRα‐expressing tumors . Mol Cancer Ther . 2015 ; 14 ( 7 ): 1605 ‐ 1613 . 25904506 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-1095

256 Kovtun YV , Audette CA , Ye Y , et al. Antibody‐drug conjugates designed to eradicate tumors with homogeneous and heterogeneous expression of the target antigen . Cancer Res . 2006 ; 66 ( 6 ): 3214 ‐ 3221 . 16540673 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3973

257 Moore KN , Martin LP , O'Malley DM , et al. Safety and activity of mirvetuximab soravtansine (IMGN853), a folate receptor alpha‐targeting antibody‐drug conjugate, in platinum‐resistant ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer: a phase I expansion study . J Clin Oncol . 2017 ; 35 ( 10 ): 1112 ‐ 1118 . 28029313 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.9538 PMC5559878

258 Moore KN , Oza AM , Colombo N , et al. Phase III, randomized trial of mirvetuximab soravtansine versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum‐resistant ovarian cancer: primary analysis of FORWARD I . Ann Oncol . 2021 ; 32 ( 6 ): 757 ‐ 765 . 33667670 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.02.017

259 Moore KN , Angelergues A , Konecny GE , et al. Phase III MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOT‐ov55) study: initial report of mirvetuximab soravtansine vs. investigator's choice of chemotherapy in platinum‐resistant, advanced high‐grade epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers with high folate receptor‐alpha expression . J Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 41 ( 17 ). suppl. LBA5507‐LBA5507.

260 Gilbert L , Oaknin A , Matulonis UA , et al. Safety and efficacy of mirvetuximab soravtansine, a folate receptor alpha (FRα)‐targeting antibody‐drug conjugate (ADC), in combination with bevacizumab in patients with platinum‐resistant ovarian cancer . Gynecol Oncol . 2023 ; 170 : 241 ‐ 247 . 36736157 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.01.020

261 Bogani G , Coleman RL , Vergote I , et al. Mirvetuximab soravtansine‐gynx: first antibody/antigen‐drug conjugate (ADC) in advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer . Int J Gynecol Cancer . 2024 ; 34 ( 4 ): 469 ‐ 477 . 38101816 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004924

262 Aschenbrenner DS . New drug treats female reproductive cancers . Am J Nurs . 2023 ; 123 ( 4 ): 25 . 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000925492.07716.f4 36951341

263 Moore KN , O'Malley DM , Vergote I , et al. Safety and activity findings from a phase 1b escalation study of mirvetuximab soravtansine, a folate receptor alpha (FRα)‐targeting antibody‐drug conjugate (ADC), in combination with carboplatin in patients with platinum‐sensitive ovarian cancer . Gynecol Oncol . 2018 ; 151 ( 1 ): 46 ‐ 52 . 30093227 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.07.017

264 Chapman G , Sparrow DB , Kremmer E , Dunwoodie SL . Notch inhibition by the ligand DELTA‐LIKE 3 defines the mechanism of abnormal vertebral segmentation in spondylocostal dysostosis . Hum Mol Genet . 2011 ; 20 ( 5 ): 905 ‐ 916 . 21147753 10.1093/hmg/ddq529

265 Ranallo N , Bocchini M , Menis J , et al. Delta‐like ligand 3 (DLL3): an attractive actionable target in tumors with neuroendocrine origin . Expert Rev Anticancer Ther . 2022 ; 22 ( 6 ): 597 ‐ 603 . 35477310 10.1080/14737140.2022.2071703

266 Kim JW , Ko JH , Sage J . DLL3 regulates Notch signaling in small cell lung cancer . iScience . 2022 ; 25 ( 12 ): 105603 . 36483011 10.1016/j.isci.2022.105603 PMC9722452

267 Puca L , Gavyert K , Sailer V , et al. Delta‐like protein 3 expression and therapeutic targeting in neuroendocrine prostate cancer . Sci Transl Med . 2019 ; 11 ( 484 ): eaav0891 . 30894499 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav0891 PMC6525633

268 Jungk C , Mock A , Exner J , et al. Spatial transcriptome analysis reveals Notch pathway‐associated prognostic markers in IDH1 wild‐type glioblastoma involving the subventricular zone . BMC Med . 2016 ; 14 ( 1 ): 170 . 27782828 10.1186/s12916-016-0710-7 PMC5080721

269 Matsuo K , Taniguchi K , Hamamoto H , et al. Delta‐like 3 localizes to neuroendocrine cells and plays a pivotal role in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine malignancy . Cancer Sci . 2019 ; 110 ( 10 ): 3122 ‐ 3131 . 31369178 10.1111/cas.14157 PMC6778628

270 George J , Walter V , Peifer M , et al. Integrative genomic profiling of large‐cell neuroendocrine carcinomas reveals distinct subtypes of high‐grade neuroendocrine lung tumors . Nat Commun . 2018 ; 9 ( 1 ): 1048 . 29535388 10.1038/s41467-018-03099-x PMC5849599

271 Koshkin VS , Garcia JA , Reynolds J , et al. Transcriptomic and protein analysis of small‐cell bladder cancer (SCBC) identifies prognostic biomarkers and DLL3 as a relevant therapeutic target . Clin Cancer Res . 2019 ; 25 ( 1 ): 210 ‐ 221 . 30327311 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1278 PMC6333466

272 Furuta M , Kikuchi H , Shoji T , et al. DLL3 regulates the migration and invasion of small cell lung cancer by modulating Snail . Cancer Sci . 2019 ; 110 ( 5 ): 1599 ‐ 1608 . 30874360 10.1111/cas.13997 PMC6501010

273 Rojo F , Corassa M , Mavroudis D , et al. International real‐world study of DLL3 expression in patients with small cell lung cancer . Lung Cancer . 2020 ; 147 : 237 ‐ 243 . 32745892 10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.07.026

274 Lashari BH , Vallatharasu Y , Kolandra L , Hamid M , Uprety D . Rovalpituzumab tesirine: a novel DLL3‐targeting antibody‐drug conjugate . Drugs R D . 2018 ; 18 ( 4 ): 255 ‐ 258 . 30232719 10.1007/s40268-018-0247-7 PMC6277321

275 Rossi A . Rovalpituzumab tesirine and DLL3: a new challenge for small‐cell lung cancer . Lancet Oncol . 2017 ; 18 ( 1 ): 3 ‐ 5 . 27932065 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30575-7

276 Rudin CM , Pietanza MC , Bauer TM , et al. Rovalpituzumab tesirine, a DLL3‐targeted antibody‐drug conjugate, in recurrent small‐cell lung cancer: a first‐in‐human, first‐in‐class, open‐label, phase 1 study . Lancet Oncol . 2017 ; 18 ( 1 ): 42 ‐ 51 . 27932068 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30565-4 PMC5481162

277 Morgensztern D , Besse B , Greillier L , et al. Efficacy and safety of rovalpituzumab tesirine in third‐line and beyond patients with DLL3‐expressing, relapsed/refractory small‐cell lung cancer: results from the phase II TRINITY study . Clin Cancer Res . 2019 ; 25 ( 23 ): 6958 ‐ 6966 . 31506387 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1133 PMC7105795

278 Blackhall F , Jao K , Greillier L , et al. Efficacy and safety of rovalpituzumab tesirine compared with topotecan as second‐line therapy in DLL3‐High SCLC: results From the phase 3 TAHOE study . J Thorac Oncol . 2021 ; 16 ( 9 ): 1547 ‐ 1558 . 33607312 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.02.009

279 Chapoval AI , Ni J , Lau JS , et al. B7‐H3: a costimulatory molecule for T cell activation and IFN‐gamma production . Nat Immunol . 2001 ; 2 ( 3 ): 269 ‐ 274 . 11224528 10.1038/85339

280 Sun M , Richards S , Prasad DV , Mai XM , Rudensky A , Dong C . Characterization of mouse and human B7‐H3 genes . J Immunol . 2002 ; 168 ( 12 ): 6294 ‐ 6297 . 12055244 10.4049/jimmunol.168.12.6294

281 Zhao B , Li H , Xia Y , et al. Immune checkpoint of B7‐H3 in cancer: from immunology to clinical immunotherapy . J Hematol Oncol . 2022 ; 15 ( 1 ): 153 . 36284349 10.1186/s13045-022-01364-7 PMC9597993

282 Getu AA , Tigabu A , Zhou M , Lu J , Fodstad Ø , Tan M . New frontiers in immune checkpoint B7‐H3 (CD276) research and drug development . Mol Cancer . 2023 ; 22 ( 1 ): 43 . 36859240 10.1186/s12943-023-01751-9 PMC9979440

283 Wang J , Duan J , Xing L , et al. ARTEMIS‐001: phase 1 study of HS‐20093, a B7‐H3–targeting antibody‐drug conjugate, in patients with advanced solid tumor . J Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 41 ( 16 ): 3017 ‐ 3017 . suppl.

284 Feustel K , Martin J , Falchook GS . B7‐H3 inhibitors in oncology clinical trials: a review . J Immunother Precis Oncol . 2024 ; 7 ( 1 ): 53 ‐ 66 . 38327753 10.36401/JIPO-23-18 PMC10846634

285 Yamato M , Hasegawa J , Maejima T , et al. DS‐7300a, a DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor, DXd‐based antibody‐drug conjugate targeting B7‐H3, exerts potent antitumor activities in preclinical models . Mol Cancer Ther . 2022 ; 21 ( 4 ): 635 ‐ 646 . 35149548 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-21-0554 PMC9377751

286 Patel MR , Johnson ML , Falchook GS , et al. DS‐7300 (B7‐H3 DXd‐ADC) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): a subgroup analysis of a phase 1/2 multicenter study . J Clin Oncol . 2022 ; 40 ( 6 ): 87 ‐ 87 . suppl.

287 Scribner JA , Brown JG , Son T , et al. Preclinical development of MGC018, a duocarmycin‐based antibody‐drug conjugate targeting B7‐H3 for solid cancer . Mol Cancer Ther . 2020 ; 19 ( 11 ): 2235 ‐ 2244 . 32967924 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-0116

288 Jang S , Powderly JD , Spira AI , et al. Phase 1 dose escalation study of MGC018, an anti‐B7‐H3 antibody‐drug conjugate (ADC), in patients with advanced solid tumors . J Clin Oncol . 2021 ; 39 ( 15 ): 2631 ‐ 2631 . suppl.

289 Powderly J , Kaminker P , Zhao E , Casey D , Shenderov E . 757 A phase 1/1b dose escalation and cohort expansion study of MGC018 in combination with lorigerlimab in patients with advanced solid tumors (AST) . J ImmunoTher Cancer . 2022 ; 10 ( 2 ): A789 ‐ A789 . Suppl.

290 Li X , Ding Y , Zi M , et al. CD19, from bench to bedside . Immunol Lett . 2017 ; 183 : 86 ‐ 95 . 28153605 10.1016/j.imlet.2017.01.010

291 Zammarchi F , Corbett S , Adams L , et al. ADCT‐402, a PBD dimer‐containing antibody drug conjugate targeting CD19‐expressing malignancies . Blood . 2018 ; 131 ( 10 ): 1094 ‐ 1105 . 29298756 10.1182/blood-2017-10-813493

292 Kahl BS , Hamadani M , Radford J , et al. A phase I study of ADCT‐402 (loncastuximab tesirine), a novel pyrrolobenzodiazepine‐based antibody‐drug conjugate, in relapsed/refractory B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma . Clin Cancer Res . 2019 ; 25 ( 23 ): 6986 ‐ 6994 . 31685491 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0711

293 Hamadani M , Radford J , Carlo‐Stella C , et al. Final results of a phase 1 study of loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed/refractory B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma . Blood . 2021 ; 137 ( 19 ): 2634 ‐ 2645 . 33211842 10.1182/blood.2020007512 PMC8138546

294 Caimi PF , Ai WZ , Alderuccio JP , et al. Loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma: long‐term efficacy and safety from the phase II LOTIS‐2 study . Haematologica . 2024 ; 109 ( 4 ): 1184 ‐ 1193 . 37646659 10.3324/haematol.2023.283459 PMC10985439

295 Caimi PF , Ai W , Alderuccio JP , et al. Loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (LOTIS‐2): a multicentre, open‐label, single‐arm, phase 2 trial . Lancet Oncol . 2021 ; 22 ( 6 ): 790 ‐ 800 . 33989558 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00139-X

296 Lee A . Loncastuximab tesirine: first approval . Drugs . 2021 ; 81 ( 10 ): 1229 ‐ 1233 . 34143407 10.1007/s40265-021-01550-w

297 Tedder TF , Tuscano J , Sato S , Kehrl JH . CD22, a B lymphocyte‐specific adhesion molecule that regulates antigen receptor signaling . Annu Rev Immunol . 1997 ; 15 : 481 ‐ 504 . 9143697 10.1146/annurev.immunol.15.1.481

298 Jellusova J , Nitschke L . Regulation of B cell functions by the sialic acid‐binding receptors siglec‐G and CD22 . Front Immunol . 2011 ; 2 : 96 . 22566885 10.3389/fimmu.2011.00096 PMC3342095

299 Xu Y , Harder KW , Huntington ND , Hibbs ML , Tarlinton DM . Lyn tyrosine kinase: accentuating the positive and the negative . Immunity . 2005 ; 22 ( 1 ): 9 ‐ 18 . 15664155 10.1016/j.immuni.2004.12.004

300 Doody GM , Justement LB , Delibrias CC , et al. A role in B cell activation for CD22 and the protein tyrosine phosphatase SHP . Science . 1995 ; 269 ( 5221 ): 242 ‐ 244 . 7618087 10.1126/science.7618087

301 Clark EA , Giltiay NV . CD22: a Regulator of innate and adaptive B cell responses and autoimmunity . Front Immunol . 2018 ; 9 : 2235 . 30323814 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02235 PMC6173129

302 Ghosh S , Bandulet C , Nitschke L . Regulation of B cell development and B cell signalling by CD22 and its ligands alpha2,6‐linked sialic acids . Int Immunol . 2006 ; 18 ( 4 ): 603 ‐ 611 . 16497829 10.1093/intimm/dxh402

303 Piccaluga PP , Arpinati M , Candoni A , et al. Surface antigens analysis reveals significant expression of candidate targets for immunotherapy in adult acute lymphoid leukemia . Leuk Lymphoma . 2011 ; 52 ( 2 ): 325 ‐ 327 . 21077738 10.3109/10428194.2010.529206

304 Thota S , Advani A . Inotuzumab ozogamicin in relapsed B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia . Eur J Haematol . 2017 ; 98 ( 5 ): 425 ‐ 434 . 28152223 10.1111/ejh.12862

305 Advani A , Coiffier B , Czuczman MS , et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity of inotuzumab ozogamicin, a novel immunoconjugate for the treatment of B‐cell non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of a phase I study . J Clin Oncol . 2010 ; 28 ( 12 ): 2085 ‐ 2093 . 20308665 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.1900

306 Williams S , Kim M . Inotuzumab ozogamicin in relapsed or refractory B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia . J Adv Pract Oncol . 2018 ; 9 ( 6 ): 670 ‐ 676 . 31186988 PMC6505665

307 Advani A , Coiffier B , Czuczman MS , et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity of inotuzumab ozogamicin, a novel immunoconjugate for the treatment of B‐cell non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of a phase I study . J Clin Oncol . 2010 ; 28 ( 12 ): 2085 ‐ 2093 . 20308665 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.1900

308 Lamb YN . Inotuzumab ozogamicin: first global approval . Drugs . 2017 ; 77 ( 14 ): 1603 ‐ 1610 . 28819740 10.1007/s40265-017-0802-5

309 Stelljes M , Advani AS , DeAngelo DJ , et al. Time to first subsequent salvage therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with inotuzumab ozogamicin in the phase III INO‐VATE trial . Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk . 2022 ; 22 ( 9 ): e836 ‐ e843 . 35643855 10.1016/j.clml.2022.04.022

310 Kantarjian HM , DeAngelo DJ , Stelljes M , et al. Inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia . N Engl J Med . 2016 ; 375 ( 8 ): 740 ‐ 753 . 27292104 10.1056/NEJMoa1509277 PMC5594743

311 Kantarjian HM , DeAngelo DJ , Stelljes M , et al. Inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard of care in relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia: final report and long‐term survival follow‐up from the randomized, phase 3 INO‐VATE study . Cancer . 2019 ; 125 ( 14 ): 2474 ‐ 2487 . 30920645 10.1002/cncr.32116 PMC6618133

312 Kantarjian HM , Stock W , Cassaday RD , et al. Inotuzumab ozogamicin for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the INO‐VATE trial: cD22 pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety by baseline CD22 . Clin Cancer Res . 2021 ; 27 ( 10 ): 2742 ‐ 2754 . 33602684 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2399

313 Jabbour E , Short NJ , Senapati J , et al. Mini‐hyper‐CVD plus inotuzumab ozogamicin, with or without blinatumomab, in the subgroup of older patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome‐negative B‐cell acute lymphocytic leukaemia: long‐term results of an open‐label phase 2 trial . Lancet Haematol . 2023 ; 10 ( 6 ): e433 ‐ e444 . 37187201 10.1016/S2352-3026(23)00073-X PMC11840755

314 Jabbour E , Ravandi F , Kebriaei P , et al. Salvage chemoimmunotherapy with inotuzumab ozogamicin combined with mini‐hyper‐CVD for patients with relapsed or refractory Philadelphia chromosome‐negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a phase 2 clinical trial . JAMA Oncol . 2018 ; 4 ( 2 ): 230 ‐ 234 . 28859185 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2380 PMC5838597

315 Dang NH , Ogura M , Castaigne S , et al. Randomized, phase 3 trial of inotuzumab ozogamicin plus rituximab versus chemotherapy plus rituximab for relapsed/refractory aggressive B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma . Br J Haematol . 2018 ; 182 ( 4 ): 583 ‐ 586 . 28677896 10.1111/bjh.14820 PMC6200343

316 Wagner‐Johnston ND , Goy A , Rodriguez MA , et al. A phase 2 study of inotuzumab ozogamicin and rituximab, followed by autologous stem cell transplant in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma . Leuk Lymphoma . 2015 ; 56 ( 10 ): 2863 ‐ 2869 . 25707288 10.3109/10428194.2015.1017821

317 Dürkop H , Latza U , Hummel M , Eitelbach F , Seed B , Stein H . Molecular cloning and expression of a new member of the nerve growth factor receptor family that is characteristic for Hodgkin's disease . Cell . 1992 ; 68 ( 3 ): 421 ‐ 427 . 1310894 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90180-k

318 Harlin H , Podack E , Boothby M , Alegre ML . TCR‐independent CD30 signaling selectively induces IL‐13 production via a TNF receptor‐associated factor/p38 mitogen‐activated protein kinase‐dependent mechanism . J Immunol . 2002 ; 169 ( 5 ): 2451 ‐ 2459 . 12193714 10.4049/jimmunol.169.5.2451

319 Zheng B , Fiumara P , Li YV , et al. MEK/ERK pathway is aberrantly active in Hodgkin disease: a signaling pathway shared by CD30, CD40, and RANK that regulates cell proliferation and survival . Blood . 2003 ; 102 ( 3 ): 1019 ‐ 1027 . 12689928 10.1182/blood-2002-11-3507

320 Wright CW , Rumble JM , Duckett CS . CD30 activates both the canonical and alternative NF‐kappaB pathways in anaplastic large cell lymphoma cells . J Biol Chem . 2007 ; 282 ( 14 ): 10252 ‐ 10262 . 17261581 10.1074/jbc.M608817200

321 Falini B , Pileri S , Pizzolo G , et al. CD30 (Ki‐1) molecule: a new cytokine receptor of the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily as a tool for diagnosis and immunotherapy . Blood . 1995 ; 85 ( 1 ): 1 ‐ 14 . 7803786

322 Karube K , Kakimoto Y , Tonozuka Y , Ohshima K . The expression of CD30 and its clinico‐pathologic significance in peripheral T‐cell lymphomas . Expert Rev Hematol . 2021 ; 14 ( 8 ): 777 ‐ 787 . 34263699 10.1080/17474086.2021.1955344

323 Horie R , Watanabe T . CD30: expression and function in health and disease . Semin Immunol . 1998 ; 10 ( 6 ): 457 ‐ 470 . 9826579 10.1006/smim.1998.0156

324 Nakashima M , Uchimaru K . CD30 expression and its functions during the disease progression of adult T‐cell leukemia/lymphoma . Int J Mol Sci . 2023 ; 24 ( 10 ): 8731 . 37240076 10.3390/ijms24108731 PMC10218159

325 Faber ML , Oldham RAA , Thakur A , et al. Novel anti‐CD30/CD3 bispecific antibodies activate human T cells and mediate potent anti‐tumor activity . Front Immunol . 2023 ; 14 : 1225610 . 37646042 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1225610 PMC10461807

326 Van Der Weyden C , Dickinson M , Whisstock J , Prince HM . Brentuximab vedotin in T‐cell lymphoma . Expert Rev Hematol . 2019 ; 12 ( 1 ): 5 ‐ 19 . 30526166 10.1080/17474086.2019.1558399

327 Sutherland MS , Sanderson RJ , Gordon KA , et al. Lysosomal trafficking and cysteine protease metabolism confer target‐specific cytotoxicity by peptide‐linked anti‐CD30‐auristatin conjugates . J Biol Chem . 2006 ; 281 ( 15 ): 10540 ‐ 10547 . 16484228 10.1074/jbc.M510026200

328 Okeley NM , Miyamoto JB , Zhang X , et al. Intracellular activation of SGN‐35, a potent anti‐CD30 antibody‐drug conjugate . Clin Cancer Res . 2010 ; 16 ( 3 ): 888 ‐ 897 . 20086002 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2069

329 Alpdogan O , Kartan S , Johnson W , Sokol K , Porcu P . Systemic therapy of cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma (CTCL) . Chin Clin Oncol . 2019 ; 8 ( 1 ): 10 . 30818958 10.21037/cco.2019.01.02

330 Younes A , Bartlett NL , Leonard JP , et al. Brentuximab vedotin (SGN‐35) for relapsed CD30‐positive lymphomas . N Engl J Med . 2010 ; 363 ( 19 ): 1812 ‐ 1821 . 21047225 10.1056/NEJMoa1002965

331 Connors JM , Jurczak W , Straus DJ , et al. Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for stage III or IV Hodgkin's lymphoma . N Engl J Med . 2018 ; 378 ( 4 ): 331 ‐ 344 . 29224502 10.1056/NEJMoa1708984 PMC5819601

332 Moskowitz CH , Walewski J , Nademanee A , et al. Five‐year PFS from the AETHERA trial of brentuximab vedotin for Hodgkin lymphoma at high risk of progression or relapse . Blood . 2018 ; 132 ( 25 ): 2639 ‐ 2642 . 30266774 10.1182/blood-2018-07-861641

333 Nademanee A , Sureda A , Stiff P , et al. Safety analysis of brentuximab vedotin from the phase III AETHERA trial in Hodgkin lymphoma in the post‐transplant consolidation setting . Biol Blood Marrow Transplant . 2018 ; 24 ( 11 ): 2354 ‐ 2359 . 29859255 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.05.026

334 Moskowitz CH , Nademanee A , Masszi T , et al. Brentuximab vedotin as consolidation therapy after autologous stem‐cell transplantation in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma at risk of relapse or progression (AETHERA): a randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trial . Lancet . 2015 ; 385 ( 9980 ): 1853 ‐ 1862 . 25796459 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60165-9

335 Horwitz S , O'Connor OA , Pro B , et al. The ECHELON‐2 Trial: 5‐year results of a randomized, phase III study of brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for CD30‐positive peripheral T‐cell lymphoma . Ann Oncol . 2022 ; 33 ( 3 ): 288 ‐ 298 . 34921960 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.12.002 PMC9447792

336 Horwitz S , O'Connor OA , Pro B , et al. Brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy for CD30‐positive peripheral T‐cell lymphoma (ECHELON‐2): a global, double‐blind, randomised, phase 3 trial . Lancet . 2019 ; 393 ( 10168 ): 229 ‐ 240 . 30522922 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32984-2 PMC6436818

337 Killock D . ECHELON‐2 ‐ brentuximab raises PTCL outcomes to new levels . Nat Rev Clin Oncol . 2019 ; 16 ( 3 ): 145 . 10.1038/s41571-018-0163-3 30602757

338 Kim YH , Prince HM , Whittaker S , et al. Response to brentuximab vedotin versus physician's choice by CD30 expression and large cell transformation status in patients with mycosis fungoides: an ALCANZA sub‐analysis . Eur J Cancer . 2021 ; 148 : 411 ‐ 421 . 33794441 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.01.054 PMC9347228

339 Horwitz SM , Scarisbrick JJ , Dummer R , et al. Randomized phase 3 ALCANZA study of brentuximab vedotin vs physician's choice in cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma: final data . Blood Adv . 2021 ; 5 ( 23 ): 5098 ‐ 5106 . 34507350 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004710 PMC9153035

340 Suri A , Mould DR , Liu Y , Jang G , Venkatakrishnan K . Population PK and exposure‐response relationships for the antibody‐drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin in CTCL patients in the phase III ALCANZA study . Clin Pharmacol Ther . 2018 ; 104 ( 5 ): 989 ‐ 999 . 29377077 10.1002/cpt.1037 PMC6220930

341 Prince HM , Kim YH , Horwitz SM , et al. Brentuximab vedotin or physician's choice in CD30‐positive cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma (ALCANZA): an international, open‐label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial . Lancet . 2017 ; 390 ( 10094 ): 555 ‐ 566 . 28600132 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31266-7

342 Simmons D , Seed B . Isolation of a cDNA encoding CD33, a differentiation antigen of myeloid progenitor cells . J Immunol . 1988 ; 141 ( 8 ): 2797 ‐ 2800 . 3139766

343 Hernández‐Caselles T , Miguel RC , Ruiz‐Alcaraz AJ , García‐Peñarrubia P . CD33 (Siglec‐3) inhibitory function: role in the NKG2D/DAP10 activating pathway . J Immunol Res . 2019 ; 2019 : 6032141 . 31143782 10.1155/2019/6032141 PMC6501159

344 Paul SP , Taylor LS , Stansbury EK , McVicar DW . Myeloid specific human CD33 is an inhibitory receptor with differential ITIM function in recruiting the phosphatases SHP‐1 and SHP‐2 . Blood . 2000 ; 96 ( 2 ): 483 ‐ 490 . 10887109

345 Walter RB , Raden BW , Zeng R , Häusermann P , Bernstein ID , Cooper JA . ITIM‐dependent endocytosis of CD33‐related Siglecs: role of intracellular domain, tyrosine phosphorylation, and the tyrosine phosphatases, Shp1 and Shp2 . J Leukoc Biol . 2008 ; 83 ( 1 ): 200 ‐ 211 . 17947393 10.1189/jlb.0607388

346 Schneider D , Xiong Y , Hu P , et al. A unique human immunoglobulin heavy chain variable domain‐only CD33 CAR for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia . Front Oncol . 2018 ; 8 : 539 . 30524966 10.3389/fonc.2018.00539 PMC6262782

347 Siveen KS , Uddin S , Mohammad RM . Targeting acute myeloid leukemia stem cell signaling by natural products . Mol Cancer . 2017 ; 16 ( 1 ): 13 . 28137265 10.1186/s12943-016-0571-x PMC5282735

348 Niculescu‐Duvaz I . Technology evaluation: gemtuzumab ozogamicin, Celltech Group . Curr Opin Mol Ther . 2000 ; 2 ( 6 ): 691 ‐ 696 . 11249747

349 Williams JP , Handler HL . Antibody‐targeted chemotherapy for the treatment of relapsed acute myeloid leukemia . Am J Manag Care . 2000 ; 6 ( 18 ): S975 ‐ 985 . Suppl. 11184568

350 Röllig C . Gemtuzumab ozogamicin in AML: the next chapter . Blood . 2023 ; 142 ( 20 ): 1673 ‐ 1674 . 37971761 10.1182/blood.2023022244

351 Dowell JA , Korth‐Bradley J , Liu H , King SP , Berger MS . Pharmacokinetics of gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an antibody‐targeted chemotherapy agent for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first relapse . J Clin Pharmacol . 2001 ; 41 ( 11 ): 1206 ‐ 1214 . 11697753 10.1177/00912700122012751

352 Miller JL . FDA approves antibody‐directed cytotoxic agent for acute myeloid leukemia . Am J Health Syst Pharm . 2000 ; 57 ( 13 ): 1202 . 1204. 10.1093/ajhp/57.13.1202 10902059

353 Sievers EL , Appelbaum FR , Spielberger RT , et al. Selective ablation of acute myeloid leukemia using antibody‐targeted chemotherapy: a phase I study of an anti‐CD33 calicheamicin immunoconjugate . Blood . 1999 ; 93 ( 11 ): 3678 ‐ 3784 . 10339474

354 Moseley A , Othus M , Garcia‐Manero G , Appelbaum FR , Erba HP , Walter RB . Predicting severe toxicities with intensive induction chemotherapy for adult acute myeloid leukemia: analysis of SWOG Cancer Research Network trials S0106 and S1203 . Leuk Lymphoma . 2021 ; 62 ( 7 ): 1774 ‐ 1777 . 33560164 10.1080/10428194.2021.1881512 PMC8282671

355 Medeiros BC , Othus M , Tallman MS , et al. The relationship between clinical trial accrual volume and outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia: a SWOG/ECOG‐ACRIN study (S0106 and E1900) . Leuk Res . 2019 ; 78 : 29 ‐ 33 . 30673620 10.1016/j.leukres.2019.01.007 PMC6615032

356 Selby C , Yacko LR , Glode AE . Gemtuzumab ozogamicin: back again . J Adv Pract Oncol . 2019 ; 10 ( 1 ): 68 ‐ 82 . 31308990 PMC6605703

357 Abaza Y , Kantarjian H , Garcia‐Manero G , et al. Long‐term outcome of acute promyelocytic leukemia treated with all‐trans‐retinoic acid, arsenic trioxide, and gemtuzumab . Blood . 2017 ; 129 ( 10 ): 1275 ‐ 1283 . 28003274 10.1182/blood-2016-09-736686 PMC5413297

358 Gamis AS , Alonzo TA , Meshinchi S , et al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin in children and adolescents with de novo acute myeloid leukemia improves event‐free survival by reducing relapse risk: results from the randomized phase III Children's Oncology Group trial AAML0531 . J Clin Oncol . 2014 ; 32 ( 27 ): 3021 ‐ 3032 . 25092781 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.3628 PMC4162498

359 Geisberger R , Crameri R , Achatz G . Models of signal transduction through the B‐cell antigen receptor . Immunology . 2003 ; 110 ( 4 ): 401 ‐ 410 . 14632636 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2003.01770.x PMC1783084

360 Jumaa H , Caganova M , McAllister EJ , et al. Immunoglobulin expression in the endoplasmic reticulum shapes the metabolic fitness of B lymphocytes . Life Sci Alliance . 2020 ; 3 ( 6 ): e202000700 . 32341085 10.26508/lsa.202000700 PMC7190274

361 Phelan JD , Young RM , Webster DE , et al. A multiprotein supercomplex controlling oncogenic signalling in lymphoma . Nature . 2018 ; 560 ( 7718 ): 387 ‐ 391 . 29925955 10.1038/s41586-018-0290-0 PMC6201842

362 Tkachenko A , Kupcova K , Havranek O . B‐cell receptor signaling and beyond: the role of Igα (CD79a)/Igβ (CD79b) in normal and malignant B cells . Int J Mol Sci . 2023 ; 25 ( 1 ): 10 . 38203179 10.3390/ijms25010010 PMC10779339

363 Adachi T , Wienands J , Wakabayashi C , Yakura H , Reth M , Tsubata T . SHP‐1 requires inhibitory co‐receptors to down‐modulate B cell antigen receptor‐mediated phosphorylation of cellular substrates . J Biol Chem . 2001 ; 276 ( 28 ): 26648 ‐ 26655 . 11356834 10.1074/jbc.M100997200

364 Alsadeq A , Hobeika E , Medgyesi D , Kläsener K , Reth M . The role of the Syk/Shp‐1 kinase‐phosphatase equilibrium in B cell development and signaling . J Immunol . 2014 ; 193 ( 1 ): 268 ‐ 276 . 24899508 10.4049/jimmunol.1203040

365 Crute BW , Sheraden R , Ott VL , Harley ITW , Getahun A , Cambier JC . Inhibitory receptor trap: a platform for discovery of inhibitory receptors that utilize inositol lipid and phosphotyrosine phosphatase effectors . Front Immunol . 2020 ; 11 : 592329 . 33193438 10.3389/fimmu.2020.592329 PMC7641642

366 Xu PP , Shen R , Shi ZY , et al. The prognostic significance of CD79B mutation in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma: a meta‐analysis and systematic literature review . Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk . 2022 ; 22 ( 12 ): e1051 ‐ e1058 . 36182550 10.1016/j.clml.2022.08.006

367 Mehta A , Forero‐Torres A . Development and integration of antibody‐drug conjugate in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma . Curr Oncol Rep . 2015 ; 17 ( 9 ): 41 . 26194424 10.1007/s11912-015-0466-9

368 Polson AG , Yu SF , Elkins K , et al. Antibody‐drug conjugates targeted to CD79 for the treatment of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma . Blood . 2007 ; 110 ( 2 ): 616 ‐ 623 . 17374736 10.1182/blood-2007-01-066704

369 Hammood M , Craig AW , Leyton JV . Impact of endocytosis mechanisms for the receptors targeted by the currently approved antibody‐drug conjugates (ADCs) – a necessity for future ADC research and development . Pharmaceuticals (Basel) . 2021 ; 14 ( 7 ): 674 . 34358100 10.3390/ph14070674 PMC8308841

370 Deeks ED . Polatuzumab vedotin: first global approval . Drugs . 2019 ; 79 ( 13 ): 1467 ‐ 1475 . 31352604 10.1007/s40265-019-01175-0 PMC6794237

371 Dornan D , Bennett F , Chen Y , et al. Therapeutic potential of an anti‐CD79b antibody‐drug conjugate, anti‐CD79b‐vc‐MMAE, for the treatment of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma . Blood . 2009 ; 114 ( 13 ): 2721 ‐2129. 19633198 10.1182/blood-2009-02-205500

372 Choi Y , Diefenbach CS . Polatuzumab vedotin: a new target for B cell malignancies . Curr Hematol Malig Rep . 2020 ; 15 ( 2 ): 125 ‐ 129 . 32172360 10.1007/s11899-020-00572-7

373 Palanca‐Wessels MC , Czuczman M , Salles G , et al. Safety and activity of the anti‐CD79B antibody‐drug conjugate polatuzumab vedotin in relapsed or refractory B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a phase 1 study . Lancet Oncol . 2015 ; 16 ( 6 ): 704 ‐ 715 . 25925619 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70128-2

374 Sehn LH , Hertzberg M , Opat S , et al. Polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab in relapsed/refractory DLBCL: survival update and new extension cohort data . Blood Adv . 2022 ; 6 ( 2 ): 533 ‐ 543 . 34749395 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005794 PMC8791582

375 Sehn LH , Herrera AF , Flowers CR , et al. Polatuzumab vedotin in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma . J Clin Oncol . 2020 ; 38 ( 2 ): 155 ‐ 165 . 31693429 10.1200/JCO.19.00172 PMC7032881

376 Tilly H , Morschhauser F , Sehn LH , et al. Polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma . N Engl J Med . 2022 ; 386 ( 4 ): 351 ‐ 363 . 34904799 10.1056/NEJMoa2115304 PMC11702892

377 Abelman RO , Wu B , Spring LM , Ellisen LW , Bardia A . Mechanisms of resistance to antibody‐drug conjugates . Cancers (Basel) . 2023 ; 15 ( 4 ): 1278 . 36831621 10.3390/cancers15041278 PMC9954407

378 Loganzo F , Tan X , Sung M , et al. Tumor cells chronically treated with a trastuzumab‐maytansinoid antibody‐drug conjugate develop varied resistance mechanisms but respond to alternate treatments . Mol Cancer Ther . 2015 ; 14 ( 4 ): 952 ‐ 963 . 25646013 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0862

379 Gandullo‐Sánchez L , Ocaña A , Pandiella A . Generation of antibody‐drug conjugate resistant models . Cancers (Basel) . 2021 ; 13 ( 18 ): 4631 . 34572858 10.3390/cancers13184631 PMC8466899

380 van der Velden VH , Boeckx N , Jedema I , et al. High CD33‐antigen loads in peripheral blood limit the efficacy of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg) treatment in acute myeloid leukemia patients . Leukemia . 2004 ; 18 ( 5 ): 983 ‐ 988 . 15029214 10.1038/sj.leu.2403350

381 Rigakos G , Razis E , Koliou GA , et al. Evaluation of the role of p95 HER2 isoform in trastuzumab efficacy in metastatic breast cancer . Anticancer Res . 2021 ; 41 ( 4 ): 1793 ‐ 1802 . 33813384 10.21873/anticanres.14945

382 Wynn CS , Tang SC . Anti‐HER2 therapy in metastatic breast cancer: many choices and future directions . Cancer Metastasis Rev . 2022 ; 41 ( 1 ): 193 ‐ 209 . 35142964 10.1007/s10555-022-10021-x PMC8924093

383 Scaltriti M , Rojo F , Ocana A , et al. Expression of p95HER2, a truncated form of the HER2 receptor, and response to anti‐HER2 therapies in breast cancer . J Natl Cancer Inst . 2007 ; 99 ( 8 ): 628 ‐ 638 . 17440164 10.1093/jnci/djk134

384 Codony‐Servat J , Albanell J , Lopez‐Talavera JC , Arribas J , Baselga J . Cleavage of the HER2 ectodomain is a pervanadate‐activable process that is inhibited by the tissue inhibitor of metalloproteases‐1 in breast cancer cells . Cancer Res . 1999 ; 59 ( 6 ): 1196 ‐ 1201 . 10096547

385 Mercogliano MF , Inurrigarro G , De Martino M , et al. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast overexpresses MUC4 and is associated with poor outcome to adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2‐positive breast cancer . BMC Cancer . 2017 ; 17 ( 1 ): 895 . 29281999 10.1186/s12885-017-3897-x PMC5745882

386 Bruni S , Mauro FL , Proietti CJ , et al. Blocking soluble TNFα sensitizes HER2‐positive breast cancer to trastuzumab through MUC4 downregulation and subverts immunosuppression . J Immunother Cancer . 2023 ; 11 ( 3 ): e005325 . 36889811 10.1136/jitc-2022-005325 PMC10016294

387 Negrón‐Vega L , Cora EM , Pérez‐Torres M , Tang SC , Maihle NJ , Ryu JS . Expression of EGFR isoform D is regulated by HER receptor activators in breast cancer cells . Biochem Biophys Rep . 2022 ; 31 : 101326 . 36039113 10.1016/j.bbrep.2022.101326 PMC9418195

388 Phillips GD , Fields CT , Li G , et al. Dual targeting of HER2‐positive cancer with trastuzumab emtansine and pertuzumab: critical role for neuregulin blockade in antitumor response to combination therapy . Clin Cancer Res . 2014 ; 20 ( 2 ): 456 ‐ 468 . 24097864 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0358

389 Bon G , Pizzuti L , Laquintana V , et al. Loss of HER2 and decreased T‐DM1 efficacy in HER2 positive advanced breast cancer treated with dual HER2 blockade: the SePHER Study . J Exp Clin Cancer Res . 2020 ; 39 ( 1 ): 279 . 33302999 10.1186/s13046-020-01797-3 PMC7731769

390 Grassart A , Meas‐Yedid V , Dufour A , Olivo‐Marin JC , Dautry‐Varsat A , Sauvonnet N . Pak1 phosphorylation enhances cortactin‐N‐WASP interaction in clathrin‐caveolin‐independent endocytosis . Traffic . 2010 ; 11 ( 8 ): 1079 ‐ 1091 . 20444238 10.1111/j.1600-0854.2010.01075.x

391 Shin EY , Soung NK , Schwartz MA , Kim EG . Altered endocytosis in cellular senescence . Ageing Res Rev . 2021 ; 68 : 101332 . 33753287 10.1016/j.arr.2021.101332 PMC8131247

392 Mulcahy LA , Pink RC , Carter DR . Routes and mechanisms of extracellular vesicle uptake . J Extracell Vesicles . 2014 : 3 . 10.3402/jev.v3.24641 PMC4122821 25143819

393 Damm EM , Pelkmans L , Kartenbeck J , Mezzacasa A , Kurzchalia T , Helenius A . Clathrin‐ and caveolin‐1‐independent endocytosis: entry of simian virus 40 into cells devoid of caveolae . J Cell Biol . 2005 ; 168 ( 3 ): 477 ‐ 488 . 15668298 10.1083/jcb.200407113 PMC2171728

394 Guidi L , Pellizzari G , Tarantino P , Valenza C , Curigliano G . Resistance to antibody‐drug conjugates targeting HER2 in breast cancer: molecular landscape and future challenges . Cancers (Basel) . 2023 ; 15 ( 4 ): 1130 . 36831473 10.3390/cancers15041130 PMC9954056

395 Yang C , He B , Dai W , et al. The role of caveolin‐1 in the biofate and efficacy of anti‐tumor drugs and their nano‐drug delivery systems . Acta Pharm Sin B . 2021 ; 11 ( 4 ): 961 ‐ 977 . 33996409 10.1016/j.apsb.2020.11.020 PMC8105775

396 Sung M , Tan X , Lu B , et al. Caveolae‐mediated endocytosis as a novel mechanism of resistance to trastuzumab emtansine (T‐DM1) . Mol Cancer Ther . 2018 ; 17 ( 1 ): 243 ‐ 253 . 29054985 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0403

397 Leyton JV . The endosomal‐lysosomal system in ADC design and cancer therapy . Expert Opin Biol Ther . 2023 ; 23 ( 11 ): 1067 ‐ 1076 . 37978880 10.1080/14712598.2023.2285996

398 Ríos‐Luci C , García‐Alonso S , Díaz‐Rodríguez E , et al. Resistance to the antibody‐drug conjugate T‐DM1 is based in a reduction in lysosomal proteolytic activity . Cancer Res . 2017 ; 77 ( 17 ): 4639 ‐ 4651 . 28687619 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-3127

399 Zhang J , Fan J , Zeng X , et al. Targeting the autophagy promoted antitumor effect of T‐DM1 on HER2‐positive gastric cancer . Cell Death Dis . 2021 ; 12 ( 4 ): 288 . 33731670 10.1038/s41419-020-03349-1 PMC7969610

400 Tomabechi R , Kishimoto H , Sato T , et al. SLC46A3 is a lysosomal proton‐coupled steroid conjugate and bile acid transporter involved in transport of active catabolites of T‐DM1 . PNAS Nexus . 2022 ; 1 ( 3 ): pgac063 . 36741448 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac063 PMC9896951

401 Kinneer K , Meekin J , Tiberghien AC , et al. SLC46A3 as a potential predictive biomarker for antibody‐drug conjugates bearing noncleavable linked maytansinoid and pyrrolobenzodiazepine warheads . Clin Cancer Res . 2018 ; 24 ( 24 ): 6570 ‐ 6582 . 30131388 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1300

402 Hamblett KJ , Jacob AP , Gurgel JL , et al. SLC46A3 is required to transport catabolites of noncleavable antibody maytansine conjugates from the lysosome to the cytoplasm . Cancer Res . 2015 ; 75 ( 24 ): 5329 ‐ 5340 . 26631267 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1610

403 Wang H , Wang W , Xu Y , et al. Aberrant intracellular metabolism of T‐DM1 confers T‐DM1 resistance in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐positive gastric cancer cells . Cancer Sci . 2017 ; 108 ( 7 ): 1458 ‐ 1468 . 28388007 10.1111/cas.13253 PMC5497802

404 Mandal D , Patel P , Verma SK , Sahu BR , Parija T . Proximal discrepancy in intrinsic atomic interaction arrests G2/M phase by inhibiting Cyclin B1/CDK1 to infer molecular and cellular biocompatibility of D‐limonene . Sci Rep . 2022 ; 12 ( 1 ): 18184 . 36307489 10.1038/s41598-022-21364-4 PMC9616896

405 Chen NP , Aretz J , Fässler R . CDK1‐cyclin‐B1‐induced kindlin degradation drives focal adhesion disassembly at mitotic entry . Nat Cell Biol . 2022 ; 24 ( 5 ): 723 ‐ 736 . 35469017 10.1038/s41556-022-00886-z PMC9106588

406 Egorshina AY , Zamaraev AV , Kaminskyy VO , Radygina TV , Zhivotovsky B , Kopeina GS . Necroptosis as a novel facet of mitotic catastrophe . Int J Mol Sci . 2022 ; 23 ( 7 ): 3733 . 35409093 10.3390/ijms23073733 PMC8998610

407 Sazonova EV , Petrichuk SV , Kopeina GS , Zhivotovsky B . A link between mitotic defects and mitotic catastrophe: detection and cell fate . Biol Direct . 2021 ; 16 ( 1 ): 25 . 34886882 10.1186/s13062-021-00313-7 PMC8656038

408 Sethi G , Rath P , Chauhan A , et al. Apoptotic mechanisms of quercetin in liver cancer: recent trends and advancements . Pharmaceutics . 2023 ; 15 ( 2 ): 712 . 36840034 10.3390/pharmaceutics15020712 PMC9960374

409 Sabbaghi M , Gil‐Gomez G , Guardia C , et al. Defective cyclin B1 induction in trastuzumab‐emtansine (T‐DM1) acquired resistance in HER2‐positive breast cancer . Clin Cancer Res . 2017 ; 23 ( 22 ): 7006 ‐ 7019 . 28821558 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0696

410 Hosseini SA , Mirzaei SA , Kermani S , Yaghoobi H . Valproate modulates the activity of multidrug resistance efflux pumps, as a chemoresistance factor in gastric cancer cells . Mol Biol Rep . 2024 ; 51 ( 1 ): 427 . 38498238 10.1007/s11033-024-09284-0

411 Marin JJG , Monte MJ , Macias RIR , et al. Expression of chemoresistance‐associated ABC proteins in hepatobiliary, pancreatic and gastrointestinal cancers . Cancers (Basel) . 2022 ; 14 ( 14 ): 3524 . 35884584 10.3390/cancers14143524 PMC9320734

412 Toledo B , González‐Titos A , Hernández‐Camarero P , Perán M . A brief review on chemoresistance; targeting cancer stem cells as an alternative approach . Int J Mol Sci . 2023 ; 24 ( 5 ): 4487 . 36901917 10.3390/ijms24054487 PMC10003376

413 Choules MP , Zuo P , Otsuka Y , Garg A , Tang M , Bonate P . Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model to predict drug‐drug interactions with the antibody‐drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin . J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn . 2023 . 10.1007/s10928-023-09877-5 PMC11576838 37632598

414 Cabaud O , Berger L , Crompot E , et al. Overcoming resistance to anti‐Nectin‐4 antibody‐drug conjugate . Mol Cancer Ther . 2022 ; 21 ( 7 ): 1227 ‐ 1235 . 35534238 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-22-0013

415 Díaz‐Rodríguez E , Gandullo‐Sánchez L , Ocaña A , Pandiella A . Novel ADCs and strategies to overcome resistance to anti‐HER2 ADCs . Cancers (Basel) . 2021 ; 14 ( 1 ): 154 . 35008318 10.3390/cancers14010154 PMC8750930

416 Kalinovsky DV , Kholodenko IV , Svirshchevskaya EV , et al. Targeting GD2‐positive tumor cells by pegylated scFv fragment‐drug conjugates carrying maytansinoids DM1 and DM4 . Curr Issues Mol Biol . 2023 ; 45 ( 10 ): 8112 ‐ 8125 . 37886955 10.3390/cimb45100512 PMC10604934

417 Takegawa N , Nonagase Y , Yonesaka K , et al. DS‐8201a, a new HER2‐targeting antibody‐drug conjugate incorporating a novel DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor, overcomes HER2‐positive gastric cancer T‐DM1 resistance . Int J Cancer . 2017 ; 141 ( 8 ): 1682 ‐ 1689 . 28677116 10.1002/ijc.30870

418 Prokop A , Wrasidlo W , Lode H , et al. Induction of apoptosis by enediyne antibiotic calicheamicin thetaII proceeds through a caspase‐mediated mitochondrial amplification loop in an entirely Bax‐dependent manner . Oncogene . 2003 ; 22 ( 57 ): 9107 ‐ 9120 . 14647446 10.1038/sj.onc.1207196

419 Walter RB , Raden BW , Cronk MR , Bernstein ID , Appelbaum FR , Banker DE . The peripheral benzodiazepine receptor ligand PK11195 overcomes different resistance mechanisms to sensitize AML cells to gemtuzumab ozogamicin . Blood . 2004 ; 103 ( 11 ): 4276 ‐ 4284 . 14962898 10.1182/blood-2003-11-3825

420 Moore J , Seiter K , Kolitz J , et al. A Phase II study of Bcl‐2 antisense (oblimersen sodium) combined with gemtuzumab ozogamicin in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first relapse . Leuk Res . 2006 ; 30 ( 7 ): 777 ‐ 783 . 16730060 10.1016/j.leukres.2005.10.025

421 Rosen DB , Harrington KH , Cordeiro JA , et al. AKT signaling as a novel factor associated with in vitro resistance of human AML to gemtuzumab ozogamicin . PLoS One . 2013 ; 8 ( 1 ): e53518 . 23320091 10.1371/journal.pone.0053518 PMC3539972

422 Guardia C , Bianchini G , Arpí LO , et al. Preclinical and clinical characterization of fibroblast‐derived neuregulin‐1 on trastuzumab and pertuzumab activity in HER2‐positive breast cancer . Clin Cancer Res . 2021 ; 27 ( 18 ): 5096 ‐ 5108 . 34385295 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2915

423 Endo Y , Shen Y , Youssef LA , Mohan N , Wu WJ . T‐DM1‐resistant cells gain high invasive activity via EGFR and integrin cooperated pathways . MAbs . 2018 ; 10 ( 7 ): 1003 ‐ 1017 . 30130447 10.1080/19420862.2018.1503904 PMC6260067

424 Tsutsumi H , Iwama E , Ibusuki R , et al. Mutant forms of EGFR promote HER2 trafficking through efficient formation of HER2‐EGFR heterodimers . Lung Cancer . 2023 ; 175 : 101 ‐ 111 . 36495783 10.1016/j.lungcan.2022.11.018

425 Gandullo‐Sánchez L , Pandiella A . An anti‐EGFR antibody‐drug conjugate overcomes resistance to HER2‐targeted drugs . Cancer Lett . 2023 ; 554 : 216024 . 36455759 10.1016/j.canlet.2022.216024

426 Zoeller JJ , Vagodny A , Daniels VW , et al. Navitoclax enhances the effectiveness of EGFR‐targeted antibody‐drug conjugates in PDX models of EGFR‐expressing triple‐negative breast cancer . Breast Cancer Res . 2020 ; 22 ( 1 ): 132 . 33256808 10.1186/s13058-020-01374-8 PMC7708921

427 Corbett S , Huang S , Zammarchi F , Howard PW , van Berkel PH , Hartley JA . The role of specific ATP‐binding cassette transporters in the acquired resistance to pyrrolobenzodiazepine dimer‐containing antibody‐drug conjugates . Mol Cancer Ther . 2020 ; 19 ( 9 ): 1856 ‐ 1865 . 32669316 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-0222 PMC7611352

428 Ocaña A , Amir E , Pandiella A . HER2 heterogeneity and resistance to anti‐HER2 antibody‐drug conjugates . Breast Cancer Res . 2020 ; 22 ( 1 ): 15 . 32005279 10.1186/s13058-020-1252-7 PMC6995165

429 Migliorini F , Cini E , Dreassi E , et al. A pH‐responsive crosslinker platform for antibody‐drug conjugate (ADC) targeting delivery . Chem Commun (Camb) . 2022 ; 58 ( 75 ): 10532 ‐ 10535 . 36043993 10.1039/d2cc03052g

430 Gera N , Fitzgerald KM , Ramesh V , et al. MYTX‐011: a pH‐dependent anti‐cMET antibody‐drug conjugate designed for enhanced payload delivery to cMET expressing tumor cells . Mol Cancer Ther . 2024 . 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-23-0784 PMC11372359 38684230

431 de Goeij BE , Vink T , Ten Napel H , et al. Efficient payload delivery by a bispecific antibody‐drug conjugate targeting HER2 and CD63 . Mol Cancer Ther . 2016 ; 15 ( 11 ): 2688 ‐ 2697 . 27559142 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0364

432 Zhuang W , Zhang W , Wang L , et al. Generation of a novel SORT1×HER2 bispecific antibody‐drug conjugate targeting HER2‐low‐expression tumor . Int J Mol Sci . 2023 ; 24 ( 22 ): 16056 . 38003245 10.3390/ijms242216056 PMC10671096

433 Zhou Q . Site‐specific antibody conjugation for ADC and beyond . Biomedicines . 2017 ; 5 ( 4 ): 64 . 29120405 10.3390/biomedicines5040064 PMC5744088

434 Kühl L , Aschmoneit N , Kontermann RE , Seifert O . The eIg technology to generate Ig‐like bispecific antibodies . MAbs . 2022 ; 14 ( 1 ): 2063043 . 35427197 10.1080/19420862.2022.2063043 PMC9037507

435 Demetri GD , Luke JJ , Hollebecque A , et al. First‐in‐human phase I study of ABBV‐085, an antibody‐drug conjugate targeting LRRC15, in sarcomas and other advanced solid tumors . Clin Cancer Res . 2021 ; 27 ( 13 ): 3556 ‐ 3566 . 33820780 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4513

436 Purcell JW , Tanlimco SG , Hickson J , et al. LRRC15 is a novel mesenchymal protein and stromal target for antibody‐drug conjugates . Cancer Res . 2018 ; 78 ( 14 ): 4059 ‐ 4072 . 29764866 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-0327

437 Wu K . Research highlights of clinical oncology early 2022 . Holist Integr Oncol . 2022 ; 1 ( 1 ): 6 . 37520335 10.1007/s44178-022-00006-9 PMC9255546

438 Dugal‐Tessier J , Thirumalairajan S , Jain N . Antibody‐oligonucleotide conjugates: a twist to antibody‐drug conjugates . J Clin Med . 2021 ; 10 ( 4 ): 838 . 33670689 10.3390/jcm10040838 PMC7922418

439 Brant MG , Garnett GAE , Guedia J , et al. Generation and structure‐activity relationships of novel imidazo‐thienopyridine based TLR7 agonists: application as payloads for immunostimulatory antibody drug‐conjugates . Bioorg Med Chem Lett . 2023 ; 91 : 129348 . 37217025 10.1016/j.bmcl.2023.129348

440 Fu C , Tong W , Yu L , et al. When will the immune‐stimulating antibody conjugates (ISACs) be transferred from bench to bedside? Pharmacol Res . 2024 ; 203 : 107160 . 38547937 10.1016/j.phrs.2024.107160

441 Mullard A . Antibody‐oligonucleotide conjugates enter the clinic . Nat Rev Drug Discov . 2022 ; 21 ( 1 ): 6 ‐ 8 . 34903879 10.1038/d41573-021-00213-5

442 Ashman N , Bargh JD , Spring DR . Non‐internalising antibody‐drug conjugates . Chem Soc Rev . 2022 ; 51 ( 22 ): 9182 ‐ 9202 . 36322071 10.1039/d2cs00446a