Clinicians should avoid directly comparing the toxicity profiles of new ADCs, as the data often comes from different trial stages. A drug in a Phase 1 expansion cohort may appear more toxic than one with mature Phase 2 randomized data, making definitive safety assessments premature.
Related Insights
Trastuzumab deruxtecan (TDXD) and datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) share the same cytotoxic payload, yet Dato-DXd has a much lower rate of interstitial lung disease (ILD). This indicates the toxicity is driven by the antibody-antigen interaction, not the payload itself.
Different TROP2-targeted ADCs using the same class of payload (topo-1 inhibitor) display distinct primary toxicities, such as diarrhea versus stomatitis. This highlights that subtle differences in drug-to-antibody ratio and linker technology create unique pharmacological profiles, making the drugs clinically distinct despite their apparent similarities.
In trials like ASCENT-4, where over 80% of the control arm received sacituzumab govitecan upon progression, the true overall survival (OS) benefit is obscured. This makes progression-free survival (PFS) a more reliable endpoint for evaluating the drug's first-line efficacy.
An ADC may show better response rates than chemotherapy, but its true benefit is compromised if toxicities lead to treatment discontinuation. As seen with failed PARP/IO combinations, if patients cannot tolerate a drug long enough, the regimen's overall effectiveness can become inferior to standard therapy.
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.
Despite both being Trop-2 targeted antibody-drug conjugates, Sacituzumab Govitecan and Datopotomab duroxotein have distinct side effects due to different linkers and payloads. Sacituzumab causes neutropenia and diarrhea, while Datopotomab is linked to stomatitis and ocular issues, requiring unique management strategies.
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.
Xevinapant's Phase III failure, after a promising Phase II trial, was partially attributed to the broader, more heterogeneous patient population. This group experienced greater toxicity than the Phase II cohort, suggesting early-phase safety profiles may not scale, ultimately compromising the efficacy of the entire treatment regimen.
Clinical trial data shows that despite specific toxicities, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) can be better tolerated overall than standard chemotherapy. For example, trials for both sacituzumab govitecan and dato-DXd reported fewer patients discontinuing treatment in the ADC arm compared to the chemotherapy arm.