When treating refractory kidney cancer, clinicians prioritize regimens offering the most durable initial response. They argue against “saving” effective drugs for later, as disease progression is traumatic for patients and many never successfully receive subsequent lines of therapy. The goal is long-term disease control now, not preserving theoretical future options.

Real-world data suggests that using one antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) immediately after another is often ineffective. A potential strategy to overcome this resistance is to administer a different class of chemotherapy before starting the second ADC.

Real-world data shows that in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients who have progressed on PARP inhibitors, subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy has a surprisingly low response rate of only 20%. This quantifies a significant opportunity for highly active ADCs to potentially replace platinum in this growing patient population.

Retrospective data shows that using one Antibody-Drug Conjugate (ADC) after another, particularly those with the same class of payload like TOP1 inhibitors, results in a low response rate of 10-20%. This creates a significant unmet need and a major clinical challenge for patients who progress on a first-line ADC.

In metastatic breast cancer, approximately one-third of patients are unable to proceed to a second line of therapy due to disease progression or declining performance status. This high attrition rate argues for using the most effective agents, such as ADCs, in the first-line setting.

Emerging data shows that a second ADC, particularly one with the same payload, often has limited efficacy. This suggests clinicians must be highly strategic in selecting the first ADC, as it may be their most impactful opportunity for this class of drugs.

As multiple effective Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) become available, the primary clinical challenge is no longer *if* they work, but *how* to use them best. Key unanswered questions involve optimal sequencing, dosing for treatment versus maintenance, and overall length of therapy, mirroring issues already seen in breast cancer.

A key lesson in bladder cancer is that patient attrition is rapid between lines of therapy; many who relapse from localized disease never receive effective later-line treatments. This reality provides a strong rationale for moving the most effective therapies, like EV-pembrolizumab, to earlier settings to maximize the number of patients who can benefit.

In metastatic gastroesophageal cancer, physicians should use their most effective therapies first. With data showing 40-50% of patients in trials never receive second-line treatment due to disease progression, holding potent agents in reserve means a large portion of patients will never benefit from them.