ReviewCancers2025
Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Antibody-Drug Conjugates.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Payload-First Toward Dual-Mechanism Antibody-Drug Conjugates.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Article
- Review
- Subcutaneous administration of antibody-drug conjugates: current challenges, emerging opportunities, and future perspectives.Antibody therapeutics · 2026Review
- Clinical Pharmacology and Translational Science Considerations in the Development of Dual-Payload Antibody Drug Conjugates.Clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Gastrointestinal Oncology: Clinical Efficacy and Inpatient Toxicity Management.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Application of antibody-drug conjugates in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: mechanisms, treatment-related adverse events, and management strategies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have risen in prominence over the past 15 years, with numerous regulatory approvals in oncology. A complicating factor in the development of ADCs is the presence of numerous analytes with unique pharmacologic properties. Following administration, ADCs are present in the body as the intact ADC, unconjugated antibody, and liberated payload. Due to heterogeneity in conjugation and in vivo deconjugation rates, the drug-to-antibody ratio (DAR) changes with time. Each of these molecular species has unique pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties that should be understood and characterized. One approach that is frequently applied is the development of in silico mathematical models to characterize and predict the PK/PD of ADCs. In this review, we summarize key mechanisms controlling the PK/PD of ADCs. This provides context for a detailed discussion of the array of PK/PD models that have been applied for ADCs, ranging from empirical compartmental models all the way through system-level models, such as physiologically based pharmacokinetics (PBPK) and cell-level PK/PD models. We provide a critical discussion of the strengths, weaknesses, and utility of each of these model structures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.