4.5 Review

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) for Personalized Treatment of Solid Tumors: A Review

期刊

ADVANCES IN THERAPY
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 1015-1035

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-017-0519-6

关键词

ADC; Antibody-drug conjugate; Auristatin; Calicheamicin; Cancer therapy; Maytansine; Monoclonal antibodies; Payload; Oncology; Targeted drug delivery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Attaching a cytotoxic payload to an antibody to form an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) provides a mechanism for selective delivery of the cytotoxic agent to cancer cells via the specific binding of the antibody to cancer-selective cell surface molecules. The first ADC to receive marketing authorization was gemtuzumab ozogamicin, which comprises an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to a highly potent DNA-targeting antibiotic, calicheamicin, approved in 2000 for treating acute myeloid leukemia. It was withdrawn from the US market in 2010 following an unsuccessful confirmatory trial. The development of two classes of highly potent microtubule-disrupting agents, maytansinoids and auristatins, as payloads for ADCs resulted in approval of brentuximab vedotin in 2011 for treating Hodgkin lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and approval of ado-trastuzumab emtansine in 2013 for treating HER2-positive breast cancer. Their success stimulated much research into the ADC approach, with > 60 ADCs currently in clinical evaluation, mostly targeting solid tumors. Five ADCs have advanced into pivotal clinical trials for treating various solid tumors-platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, triple-negative breast cancer, glioblastoma, and small cell lung cancer. The level of target expression is a key parameter in predicting the likelihood of patient benefit for all these ADCs, as well as for the approved compound, ado-trastuzumab emtansine. The development of a patient selection strategy linked to target expression on the tumor is thus critically important for identifying the population appropriate for receiving treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据