Experts question if HER2 status truly predicts ADC efficacy in urothelial cancer. The benefit seen across low-expression levels suggests HER2's main role may be simply to target the chemo payload to cancer cells, rather than indicating a specific biological dependency.
To overcome on-target, off-tumor toxicity, LabGenius designs antibodies that act like biological computers. These molecules "sample" the density of target receptors on a cell's surface and are engineered to activate and kill only when a specific threshold is met, distinguishing high-expression cancer cells from low-expression healthy cells.
The panel reviews advanced, second-line ADC trials in China using novel targets and payloads. An expert remarks that these are the drugs and questions the US and Europe may only begin to study in two to three years, signaling a significant shift in the global oncology R&D landscape.
With highly active agents yielding 30% complete response rates, the immediate goal should be to cure more patients by exploring potent combinations upfront. While sequencing minimizes toxicity, an ambitious combination strategy, such as ADC doublets, offers the best chance to eradicate disease and should be prioritized in clinical trials.
In adjuvant bladder cancer trials, ctDNA status is both prognostic and predictive. Patients with positive ctDNA after surgery are at high risk of relapse but benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Conversely, ctDNA-negative patients have a lower risk and derive no benefit, making ctDNA a critical tool to avoid unnecessary, toxic therapy.
Experts question the efficacy of sequencing ADCs like EV (Nectin-4 target) and DV (HER2 target) because they share the same MMAE chemo payload. Since resistance is often tied to the payload, not the target antibody, switching targets may not overcome resistance, though anecdotal responses have been observed.
The failure of the TROPiCS-04 trial for sacituzumab govitecan may not indicate the TROP2 ADC class is ineffective. Experts suggest problems with dosing and toxicity management (e.g., neutropenia) during the trial could be the real culprit, arguing that the drug class still holds promise.
An expert argues forcefully that the PD-L1 biomarker should be "ditched" in bladder cancer. Citing its repeated failure to predict overall survival benefit across multiple major trials, it is deemed an oversimplified and unreliable tool that leads to both over- and under-treatment of patients.
Rather than moving through distinct lines of therapy, a future strategy could involve an "ADC switch." When a patient progresses on an ADC-IO combination, the IO backbone would remain while the ADC is swapped for one with a different, non-cross-resistant mechanism, adapting the treatment in real-time.
The differing efficacy and toxicity profiles of TROP2 ADCs like sacituzumab govitecan and Dato-DXD suggest that the drug's linker and payload metabolism are crucial determinants of clinical outcome. This indicates that focusing solely on the target antigen is an oversimplification of ADC design and performance.
Experts believe the stark difference in complete response rates (5% vs 30%) between two major ADC trials is likely due to "noise"—variations in patient populations (e.g., more upper tract disease) and stricter central review criteria, rather than a fundamental difference in the therapies' effectiveness.