Data from Targeting Multiple EGFR-expressing Tumors with a Highly Potent Tumor-selective Antibody–Drug Conjugate

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract ABBV-321 (serclutamab talirine), a next-generation EGFR-targeted antibody–drug conjugate (ADC) incorporates a potent pyrrolobenzodiazepine (PBD) dimer toxin conjugated to the EGFR-targeting ABT-806 affinity-matured AM1 antibody. ABBV-321 follows the development of related EGFR-targeted ADCs including depatuxizumab mafodotin (depatux-m, ABT-414), ABT-806 conjugated to monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF), and ABBV-221 (losatuxizumab vedotin), AM1 antibody conjugated to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). The distinct tumor selectivity of ABBV-321 differentiates it from many previous highly active antibody PBD conjugates that lack a therapeutic window. Potency of the PBD dimer, combined with increased binding of AM1 to EGFR-positive tumor cells, opens the possibility to target a wide array of tumors beyond those with high levels of EGFR overexpression or amplification, including those insensitive to auristatin-based ADCs. ABBV-321 exhibits potent antitumor activity in cellular and in vivo studies including xenograft cell line and patient-derived xenograft glioblastoma, colorectal, lung, head and neck, and malignant mesothelioma tumor models that are less sensitive to depatux-m or ABBV-221. Combination studies with ABBV-321 and depatux-m suggest a promising treatment option permitting suboptimal, and potentially better tolerated, doses of both ADCs while providing improved potency. Collectively, these data suggest that ABBV-321 may offer an extended breadth of efficacy relative to other EGFR ADCs while extending utility to multiple EGFR-expressing tumor indications. Despite its highly potent PBD dimer payload, the tumor selectivity of ABBV-321, coupled with its pharmacology, toxicology, and pharmacokinetic profiles, support continuation of ongoing phase I clinical trials in patients with advanced EGFR-expressing malignancies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.