Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Investigational New Drugs 1/2018

01-02-2018 | REVIEW

Clinical toxicity of antibody drug conjugates: a meta-analysis of payloads

Authors: Joanna C. Masters, Dana J. Nickens, Dawei Xuan, Ronald L. Shazer, Michael Amantea

Published in: Investigational New Drugs | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Summary

Background Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) utilize a monoclonal antibody to deliver a cytotoxic payload specifically to tumor cells, limiting exposure to healthy tissues. Major clinical toxicities of ADCs include hematologic, hepatic, neurologic, and ophthalmic events, which are often dose-limiting. These events may be off-target effects caused by premature release of payload in circulation. A meta-analysis was performed to summarize key clinical safety data for ADCs by payload, and data permitting, establish a dose-response model for toxicity incidence as a function of payload, dose/regimen, and cancer type. Methods A literature search was performed to identify and extract data from clinical ADC studies. Toxicity incidence and severity were collected by treatment arm for anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, hepatic toxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and ocular toxicity. Exploratory plots, descriptive summaries, and logistic regression modelling were used to explore Grade ≥ 3 (G3/4) toxicities and assess the impact of covariates, including cancer type and dose/regimen. Results The dataset contained 70 publications; quantitative analysis included 43 studies with G3/4 toxicity information reported for the endpoints above. G3/4 anemia, neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy were consistently reported for MMAE ADCs, thrombocytopenia and hepatic toxicity for DM1, and ocular toxicity for MMAF. Safety profiles of MMAE, DM1, and DM4 ADCs differed between solid and hematologic cancers. Conclusions Published ADC clinical data is limited by non-uniform reporting for toxicity and lack of dosing information, limiting the ability to develop quantitative models relating toxicity to exposure. However, the current analysis suggests that key G3/4 toxicities of ADCs in the clinic are likely off-target and related to payload.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
4.
go back to reference Agresti AC, Brent A (1998) Approximate is better than "exact" for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 52(2):119–126 Agresti AC, Brent A (1998) Approximate is better than "exact" for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 52(2):119–126
Metadata
Title
Clinical toxicity of antibody drug conjugates: a meta-analysis of payloads
Authors
Joanna C. Masters
Dana J. Nickens
Dawei Xuan
Ronald L. Shazer
Michael Amantea
Publication date
01-02-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Investigational New Drugs / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-6997
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0646
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-017-0520-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Investigational New Drugs 1/2018 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine