Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37719370›Full record

ReviewActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B2023

Bispecific antibodies in cancer therapy: Target selection and regulatory requirements.

Yanze Sun, Xinmiao Yu, Xiao Wang, Kai Yuan, Gefei Wang, Lingrong Hu, Guoyu Zhang, Wenli Pei, Liping Wang, Chengliang Sun and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Yanze SunState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Xinmiao YuState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Xiao WangState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Kai YuanState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Gefei WangState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Lingrong HuState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Guoyu ZhangState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Wenli PeiState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Liping WangState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Chengliang SunState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.
Peng YangState Key Laboratory of Natural Medicines and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Design and Optimization, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 210009, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, the development of bispecific antibodies (bsAbs) has been rapid, with many new structures and target combinations being created. The boom in bsAbs has led to the successive issuance of industry guidance for their development in the US and China. However, there is a high degree of similarity in target selection, which could affect the development of diversity in bsAbs. This review presents a classification of various bsAbs for cancer therapy based on structure and target selection and examines the advantages of bsAbs over monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Through database research, we have identified the preferences of available bsAbs combinations, suggesting rational target selection options and warning of potential wastage of medical resources. We have also compared the US and Chinese guidelines for bsAbs in order to provide a reference for their development.

Indexed as

Bispecific antibodyCancer immunotherapyClinical trialsMechanismOncologyRegulatory guidanceStructureTarget selection

Identifiers

PMID37719370
PMCPMC10501874

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.