Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Modern Prodrug Design: Linker Chemistry and Payload Strategies

1.1 The "Magic Bullet" Concept – From Ehrlich to Modern Targeted Therapy

The foundation of modern targeted drug delivery can be traced to the pioneering work of the German scientist Paul Ehrlich, who introduced the concept of the "magic bullet" in the early twentieth century.¹  Ehrlich envisioned therapeutic agents that could selectively recognize and destroy disease-causing cells while sparing healthy tissues, thereby maximizing efficacy and minimizing toxicity. Although this concept was initially proposed in the context of infectious diseases, it later became a guiding principle for the development of targeted therapies in oncology.

For decades, the realization of Ehrlich's vision remained elusive due to the lack of technologies capable of achieving highly selective drug delivery. Conventional chemotherapeutic agents exhibited limited specificity, often causing significant damage to normal tissues and resulting in severe systemic toxicities. The advent of monoclonal antibody technology, particularly following the development of the hybridoma technique by Köhler and Milstein in 1975² work for which they shared the 1984 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. It provided a critical breakthrough by enabling the production of antibodies capable of recognizing specific cellular antigens with high affinity and selectivity.

The integration of monoclonal antibodies with highly potent cytotoxic agents gave rise to antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), which combine the tumor-targeting capability of antibodies with the cell-killing potency of small-molecule drugs. In this regard, ADCs represent one of the most successful modern implementations of Ehrlich's "magic bullet" concept.

The clinical translation of ADCs, however, was not straightforward. Early generations faced significant challenges, including inadequate target selection, unstable linker chemistries, insufficient payload potency, and dose-limiting toxicities. A major milestone was achieved in 2000 with the approval of the first ADC, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg)^3,4, a CD33-targeting antibody conjugated to the potent DNA-damaging agent calicheamicin for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Although initially withdrawn from the market in 2010⁵ due to safety concerns and lack of clinical benefit in confirmatory studies, the drug was subsequently re-approved in 2017⁶ using an optimized fractionated dosing regimen. This experience highlighted the critical importance of antigen selection, linker stability, payload characteristics, and dosing strategy in determining ADC efficacy and safety.

Subsequent advances in antibody engineering, conjugation technologies, linker design^7,8 and payload development have transformed ADCs into a rapidly expanding therapeutic class, now spanning multiple regulatory approvals across hematological malignancies and solid tumors.

1.2 Evolution of Prodrug Design – Traditional Prodrugs, The Need for Targeted Delivery, And the Emergence of Biologics

The concept of prodrug design emerged as a rational strategy to overcome the pharmacokinetic and physicochemical limitations of active pharmaceutical ingredients. Traditional prodrugs are pharmacologically inactive or less active derivatives that undergo enzymatic or chemical conversion within the body to release the therapeutically active drug. Historically, prodrug approaches were employed to improve aqueous solubility, membrane permeability, oral bioavailability, metabolic stability, and patient acceptability. Classic examples include enalapril, which enhances the oral delivery of enalaprilat, and valacyclovir, which improves the absorption of acyclovir through transporter-mediated uptake⁹.

Despite these successes, conventional prodrug strategies offered limited control over the spatial and temporal release of the active drug. Activation typically depended on broadly distributed metabolic enzymes or physiological conditions, resulting in systemic drug exposure following conversion. While such approaches could improve pharmacokinetic properties, they generally failed to address the fundamental challenge of selectively delivering potent therapeutics to diseased tissues while sparing healthy organs¹⁰.

This limitation became particularly evident in oncology, where highly effective cytotoxic agents often exhibit narrow therapeutic windows. Although prodrug modification could reduce some adverse effects and improve drug disposition, systemic activation frequently resulted in significant off-target toxicity. Consequently, there was growing recognition that improvements in drug delivery required not only optimized chemistry but also enhanced biological selectivity¹¹.

The emergence of biologics, particularly monoclonal antibodies, represented a transformative advance in this regard. Unlike small-molecule prodrugs, monoclonal antibodies possess the ability to recognize specific cell-surface antigens with high affinity and selectivity, enabling targeted delivery to defined cellular populations. Advances in antibody engineering, recombinant DNA technology, and large-scale biomanufacturing further accelerated their therapeutic application across multiple disease areas, especially cancer¹².

The convergence of classical prodrug principles with antibody-mediated targeting ultimately gave rise to antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs). By combining a highly selective antibody, a chemically engineered linker, and a potent cytotoxic payload, ADCs extend the traditional prodrug concept beyond simple pharmacokinetic optimization toward precise, cell-specific drug activation. In this sense, ADCs represent a major evolutionary milestone in prodrug design, transforming a strategy originally focused on modifying drug properties into one capable of achieving targeted therapeutic delivery at the cellular level.

1.3 ADCS as the Pinnacle of Prodrug Engineering – Tripartite Components and Selective Activation

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) represent one of the most sophisticated applications of modern prodrug design, integrating advances in molecular biology, antibody engineering, medicinal chemistry, and drug delivery into a single therapeutic platform. Unlike conventional prodrugs, which rely primarily on physiological or enzymatic activation, ADCs employ a biologically guided activation strategy in which drug release is directed by selective recognition of disease-associated cellular targets.

Structurally, an ADC consists of three essential components: a monoclonal antibody, a chemical linker, and a highly potent cytotoxic payload. The antibody serves as the targeting moiety, recognizing and binding a specific antigen that is preferentially expressed on tumor cells. The linker functions as a molecular bridge connecting the antibody to the payload while maintaining sufficient stability during systemic circulation. The payload, typically several orders of magnitude more potent than conventional chemotherapeutic agents, remains conjugated and largely inactive until released at the target site. Together, these three components determine the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and therapeutic index of the ADC.

The mechanism of action of ADCs reflects their prodrug-like nature. Following antigen recognition, the antibody–antigen complex undergoes receptor-mediated endocytosis and is transported through the endosomal-lysosomal pathway^13,14. Within the intracellular environment, linker cleavage or antibody degradation triggers the release of the active cytotoxic payload. Once liberated, the payload exerts its pharmacological effect through mechanisms such as microtubule disruption, DNA damage^15,16, or inhibition of DNA replication, ultimately resulting in tumor cell death. Depending on the physicochemical properties of the released payload, cytotoxic effects may also extend to neighboring antigen-negative tumor cells through the bystander effect¹⁷.

From a prodrug design perspective, ADCs offer a unique combination of selective targeting and controlled activation. The antibody provides cellular specificity, the linker governs the timing and location of drug release, and the payload delivers potent anticancer activity. This coordinated tripartite architecture transforms highly toxic small molecules into targeted therapeutics capable of achieving enhanced efficacy with reduced systemic exposure. Consequently, ADCs are widely regarded as the most advanced realization of the prodrug concept, extending traditional strategies for drug optimization into the realm of precision medicine.

1.4 Scope and Objectives of The Review

While numerous reviews have described the clinical development and mechanistic features of ADCs, fewer have examined these agents within the broader conceptual framework of prodrug engineering. This perspective is relevant because ADC activation strategies align closely with classical prodrug objectives, including site-specific delivery, reduced systemic toxicity, and improved therapeutic efficacy.

This review accordingly explores ADCs through the dual lens of prodrug pharmacology and bioconjugation science. After outlining fundamental prodrug principles and positioning ADCs relative to traditional approaches, it develops a design-oriented framework linking target biology, linker engineering, and payload selection as interconnected determinants of ADC performance, emphasizing how antigen characteristics influence intracellular trafficking, how linker chemistry governs payload release, and how payload properties determine efficacy and safety.

Clinically approved ADCs are then examined as practical examples of these principles in action, before evaluating ADCs against classical prodrug objectives to illustrate how advances in antibody engineering, conjugation technologies, and payload development have expanded the scope of targeted drug activation. Current challenges like resistance mechanisms, toxicity, and manufacturing complexity are discussed alongside emerging innovations shaping the next generation of ADC therapeutics.

The overall objective is to provide an integrated understanding of ADCs as advanced targeted prodrugs, with particular focus on the roles of target selection, linker chemistry, and payload strategy in determining clinical success.

2. FUNDAMENTALS OF PRODRUG DESIGN

2.1 Definition and Classification of Prodrugs

A prodrug is a pharmacologically inactive or less-active derivative of a parent drug^18,19 that undergoes enzymatic or chemical transformation in vivo to release the active therapeutic moiety. The prodrug concept was developed to overcome limitations associated with drug physicochemical properties, pharmacokinetics, and tissue selectivity while preserving the desired pharmacological activity of the parent compound.

Prodrugs are broadly classified into two categories: carrier-linked prodrugs and bio precursor prodrugs. Carrier-linked prodrugs consist of an active drug covalently attached to a temporary carrier group, commonly referred to as a promoiety, which is removed under specific physiological or enzymatic conditions to release the active drug. Examples include valacyclovir and enalapril, in which the carrier moiety enhances absorption or bioavailability. In contrast, bio precursor prodrugs do not contain a separate carrier group but are instead converted into the active drug through metabolic transformation. Levodopa, which is converted to dopamine following enzymatic decarboxylation, is a classic example of this category^20,21.

From a conceptual standpoint, antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) can be regarded as highly sophisticated carrier-linked prodrugs, in which the antibody and linker together function as an exceptionally large and selective promoiety. Unlike conventional carrier-linked systems, however, ADCs exploit molecular recognition and receptor-mediated uptake to achieve targeted intracellular activation.

2.2 Rationale for Prodrug Design

The development of prodrugs is driven by the need to overcome limitations that restrict the therapeutic usefulness of active pharmaceutical agents. One of the most common objectives is the improvement of aqueous solubility^10,22, particularly for highly potent compounds that exhibit poor dissolution characteristics. Enhanced solubility can facilitate formulation development, improve drug exposure, and enable administration of otherwise impractical therapeutic agents.

Another important objective is the enhancement of drug absorption and distribution. Chemical modification can improve membrane permeability, transporter-mediated uptake, or overall bioavailability. Traditional examples include valacyclovir, which exhibits superior oral absorption compared with acyclovir²³. In the context of ADCs, however, improved distribution is achieved through a different mechanism: the monoclonal antibody carrier provides prolonged systemic circulation and selective accumulation in antigen-expressing tissues rather than relying on passive diffusion or membrane permeability.²⁴

Prodrug approaches may also be used to prolong drug action by controlling the rate at which the active molecule is released. Conventional systems often achieve this through slow enzymatic or hydrolytic conversion. ADCs similarly exhibit controlled release characteristics, although release is governed by antigen recognition, cellular internalization, intracellular trafficking, and linker cleavage rather than simple hydrolysis kinetics.

Perhaps the most important objective of prodrug design is site-specific drug delivery. Traditional prodrugs attempt to exploit physiological differences such as tissue-specific enzyme expression, pH variation, or metabolic activity¹⁸. ADCs represent a major advancement of this principle by incorporating a dedicated targeting mechanism through antibody-mediated antigen recognition, thereby achieving substantially greater selectivity than most conventional prodrug systems.

2.3 Practical Considerations in Prodrug Design

Regardless of the activation strategy employed, successful prodrug development requires a careful balance between stability, activation efficiency, safety, and pharmacokinetic performance. The prodrug must remain sufficiently stable during circulation to prevent premature release of the active drug while retaining the ability to undergo efficient conversion at the intended site of action²⁵.

For ADCs, circulating stability is particularly critical because premature linker cleavage can result in systemic exposure to highly potent cytotoxic payloads, leading to significant toxicity. Equally important is the efficiency of intracellular activation, which depends on antigen binding, cellular uptake, endosomal trafficking, and payload release mechanisms. The toxicity profile of both the intact conjugate and any released metabolites must also be considered, as off-target effects can compromise the therapeutic index.

Finally, favorable pharmacokinetic behavior is essential for maximizing therapeutic benefit. An effective ADC must combine the prolonged circulation characteristics of monoclonal antibodies with efficient delivery and release of the payload within target cells. Consequently, stability, activation, toxicity, and pharmacokinetics serve as the key design parameters against which linker chemistries, conjugation strategies, and payload classes are evaluated throughout this review.

3. ADCS AS ADVANCED TARGETED PRODRUGS

3.1 Traditional Prodrug Vs. Antibody–Drug Conjugate

Although antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) share the fundamental objective of traditional prodrugs (namely, the controlled delivery of an active therapeutic agent), they differ substantially in their mechanisms of targeting, activation, and pharmacokinetic behavior. Classical prodrugs rely primarily on chemical modification of a parent drug and subsequent activation by endogenous physiological or enzymatic processes. In contrast, ADCs integrate molecular recognition, intracellular trafficking, and controlled payload release into a single therapeutic platform²⁶. Consequently, ADCs can be viewed as an advanced form of carrier-linked prodrug in which selective activation is achieved through antigen-directed targeting rather than solely through differences in tissue metabolism.

Figure 1: General structure of an ADC illustrating the monoclonal antibody scaffold, conjugation sites, chemical linker, cytotoxic payload, and drug-to-antibody ratio (DAR).

Figure 2: Mechanism of action of antibody–drug conjugates: antigen binding → receptor-mediated internalization → endosomal-lysosomal trafficking → linker cleavage → payload release → cytotoxic cell death.

Several trends emerge from this landscape: a shift from early hydrazone linkers toward protease-cleavable peptide systems (Val-Cit, Val-Ala) offering improved plasma stability; reliance on a small number of payload families like auristatins, maytansinoids, calicheamicins, PBD dimers, and topoisomerase I inhibitors and reflecting the stringent potency demands discussed in Section 5; expansion from hematologic malignancies, where circulating malignant cells are readily accessible, toward solid tumors including breast, ovarian, cervical, lung, and urothelial cancers; and the growing prominence of topoisomerase-I payloads (SN-38, DXd), whose bystander activity helps address the antigen-heterogeneity limitations of earlier generations.

7. ADCS THROUGH THE LENS OF PRODRUG DESIGN

Returning to the classical objectives outlined in Section 2, the target–trafficking–linker–payload framework developed in Sections 3–6 shows that ADCs do not merely replicate traditional prodrug goals, in several respects they substantially extend them.

Solubility. Traditional prodrugs mask hydrophobic or ionizable groups with small, cleavable promoieties to improve aqueous solubility. ADCs achieve the same end differently: payloads such as the auristatins and maytansinoids are highly hydrophobic and would be clinically impractical as free drugs, but conjugation to a ~150 kDa hydrophilic antibody scaffold masks these properties at a scale unattainable by conventional chemistry. The antibody itself functions as an extraordinarily large carrier-linked promoiety^91,92.

Distribution and pharmacokinetics. Classical prodrugs alter tissue distribution through lipophilicity or metabolic susceptibility, with limited control over where activation occurs. ADCs instead achieve distribution through molecular recognition: FcRn-mediated recycling confers prolonged circulation, while antigen binding drives selective accumulation and internalization at the target site⁹³. The classical challenge of "distribution" is thereby transformed into a problem of target selection, antigen density, and internalization kinetics (Section 3.4).

Sustained release. Where traditional sustained-release prodrugs depend on predictable hydrolysis or metabolic kinetics, ADCs layer multiple sequential delays (internalization, endosomal trafficking, lysosomal processing, and linker cleavage) each acting as a kinetic barrier before payload activation. Linker chemistry adds a further programmable layer: hydrazone linkers respond to acidic pH, Val-Cit/Val-Ala linkers require proteolytic cleavage, and non-cleavable linkers require complete antibody degradation. This combination of biological trafficking and tunable chemistry exceeds the temporal control achievable by most conventional prodrugs^94,95.

Site-specific delivery. This is where ADCs most clearly surpass traditional approaches. Conventional prodrugs rely on tissue differences in enzyme expression, pH, or metabolism. These mechanisms offering only modest spatial precision. ADCs instead encode selectivity directly into the construct via antigen-specific recognition, as reflected in the clinical success of agents targeting HER2, CD30, TROP2, CD79b, and Nectin-4. The bystander effect extends this further: payloads such as DXd and SN-38 diffuse from antigen-positive to antigen-negative neighboring cells, trading strict cellular specificity for the ability to overcome intratumoral heterogeneity, allowing ADCs to balance precision and diffusion according to tumor biology⁹⁶.

Beyond the classical framework. Conventional prodrugs typically depend on a single activation event. ADCs distribute selectivity across multiple sequential, independent steps — antibody binding, internalization, trafficking, linker processing, and payload release — any of which can gate successful activation. The agents discussed throughout this review illustrate how these layers can be tuned toward different goals: gemtuzumab ozogamicin pairs antibody targeting with acid-sensitive release; brentuximab vedotin uses protease-cleavable release of MMAE; ado-trastuzumab emtansine maximizes specificity via a non-cleavable, membrane-impermeable metabolite; and trastuzumab deruxtecan deliberately exploits a diffusible payload for bystander activity in heterogeneous tumors⁹⁷. ADCs are thus integrated biological-chemical delivery systems in which target selection, trafficking, linker engineering, and payload pharmacology function as interconnected determinants of activity, the most advanced manifestation of prodrug design developed to date.

8. CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS

The major challenges facing ADCs arise at multiple points along the target–trafficking–linker–payload cascade, and failure at any stage can reduce efficacy, narrow the therapeutic window, or drive resistance.

Linker instability. Premature cleavage of cleavable linkers exposes healthy tissue to potent payloads, reducing tumor-specific delivery. Early hydrazone linkers sometimes cleaved under mildly acidic physiological conditions, and disulfide linkers can be susceptible to circulating reducing agents; the clinical history of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (including its withdrawal and re-approval with optimized dosing) underscored the importance of linker stability to safety and efficacy.

Off-target toxicity. Toxicity arises through several mechanisms: low-level target antigen expression on healthy tissue causing on-target/off-tumor effects; nonspecific Fc-receptor-mediated uptake by reticuloendothelial cells; and premature deconjugation exposing tissues to free payload. The bystander effect compounds this risk, the interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis seen with DXd-containing ADCs illustrate how payload diffusibility can translate into clinically significant toxicity⁷⁹.

Antigen heterogeneity and resistance. Intratumoral variation in antigen expression allows antigen-negative or antigen-low cells to evade direct killing. Acquired resistance can also arise through antigen downregulation⁹⁸, impaired internalization, altered trafficking, enhanced lysosomal degradation, increased efflux, or compensatory survival signaling. While bystander-capable payloads partially address heterogeneity, resistance remains a major active challenge likely requiring combination strategies.

Manufacturing complexity and cost. ADC production requires coordinated antibody expression, linker synthesis, payload preparation, conjugation chemistry, and extensive analytical characterization of DAR distribution, aggregation, free-payload content, and stability²⁹. Site-specific conjugation improves homogeneity but can add complexity through engineered antibodies or non-natural amino acids, contributing to high production costs that may limit accessibility as ADC use expands.

9. FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Future ADC generations are likely to extend well beyond the traditional antibody–linker–cytotoxin paradigm.

Bispecific ADCs, recognizing two antigens simultaneously, may improve selectivity, enhance internalization, and reduce antigen escape; HER2-directed bispecifics have shown accelerated internalization and lysosomal trafficking preclinically, potentially helping address intratumoral heterogeneity⁹⁹.

Immune-stimulating antibody conjugates (ISACs) deliver TLR or STING agonists to convert immunologically "cold" tumors "hot," though cytokine-mediated toxicity remains a therapeutic-index challenge under active optimization.

Degrader-antibody conjugates (DACs), delivering PROTACs for targeted intracellular protein degradation, may extend therapy to previously undruggable targets — alongside dual-payload ADCs, probody-drug conjugates, and antibody fragments with improved tissue penetration.

AI-assisted design, leveraging spatial transcriptomics, single-cell sequencing, and machine learning, is being applied to predict antigen density, internalization kinetics, linker performance, and bystander behavior, though regulatory acceptance and interpretability remain open questions¹⁰⁰.

Beyond oncology, antibody-antibiotic conjugates are being explored for difficult bacterial infections, antibody-delivered immunomodulators for autoimmune disease, and antibody-RNA conjugates for gene-silencing therapeutics, suggesting ADC-targeting principles may extend across therapeutic areas¹⁰¹.

Personalized therapy is expected to grow as immunohistochemistry, RNA profiling, and molecular diagnostics enable patient selection based on antigen density, spatial distribution, and internalization behavior rather than histology alone, integrating ADC therapy with companion diagnostics.

Collectively, these developments suggest the next ADC generation will involve not merely improved versions of existing drugs, but novel targeting strategies, payload classes, computational tools, and personalized paradigms.

CONCLUSION

ADCs represent the convergence of nearly a century of prodrug theory with advances in antibody engineering, medicinal chemistry, and targeted delivery. From Ehrlich's "magic bullet" to the fifteen FDA-approved ADCs available by 2025, the field demonstrates that effective targeted therapy requires coordinated optimization of multiple interconnected components that includes target selection, intracellular trafficking, linker chemistry, and payload pharmacology, rather than a single pharmacological principle. Unlike conventional prodrugs, which depend on one activation event, ADCs layer antigen recognition, internalization, intracellular processing, and controlled release into a sophisticated activation cascade. Challenges such as linker instability, off-target toxicity, antigen heterogeneity, resistance, manufacturing complexity remain, but emerging directions (bispecific ADCs, ISACs, DACs, AI-assisted design, non-oncology applications) suggest ADCs, as biologically programmed prodrugs, will remain among the most sophisticated manifestations of modern prodrug design.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors first and foremost give thanks to God Almighty for His grace, wisdom, strength, and guidance throughout the preparation of this manuscript. The authors sincerely appreciate the encouragement, collaboration, and unwavering commitment of all co-authors throughout the development of this review. We also acknowledge the support and resources provided by our respective institutions and express our gratitude to the researchers and scientists whose published work formed the foundation of this review.

REFERENCES

1. Strebhardt K, Ullrich A. Paul Ehrlich’s magic bullet concept: 100 years of progress. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008 Jun;8(6):473–80. doi:10.1038/nrc2394
2. Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity | Nature [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/256495a0
3. Bross PF, Beitz J, Chen G, Chen XH, Duffy E, Kieffer L, et al. Approval summary: gemtuzumab ozogamicin in relapsed acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2001 Jun;7(6):1490–6. PubMed PMID: 11410481.
4. Hamann PR, Hinman LM, Hollander I, Beyer CF, Lindh D, Holcomb R, et al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, a potent and selective anti-CD33 antibody-calicheamicin conjugate for treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Bioconjug Chem. 2002;13(1):47–58. doi:10.1021/bc010021y PubMed PMID: 11792178.
5. Petersdorf SH, Kopecky KJ, Slovak M, Willman C, Nevill T, Brandwein J, et al. A phase 3 study of gemtuzumab ozogamicin during induction and postconsolidation therapy in younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2013 Jun 13;121(24):4854–60. doi:10.1182/blood-2013-01-466706 PubMed PMID: 23591789; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3682338.
6. Castaigne S, Pautas C, Terré C, Raffoux E, Bordessoule D, Bastie JN, et al. Effect of gemtuzumab ozogamicin on survival of adult patients with de-novo acute myeloid leukaemia (ALFA-0701): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. The Lancet. 2012 Apr 21;379(9825):1508–16. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60485-1 PubMed PMID: 22482940.
7. Dara S, Dhamercherla S, Jadav SS, Babu CM, Ahsan MJ. Machine Learning in Drug Discovery: A Review. Artif Intell Rev. 2022;55(3):1947–99. doi:10.1007/s10462-021-10058-4 PubMed PMID: 34393317; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8356896.
8. Ducry L, Stump B. Antibody-drug conjugates: linking cytotoxic payloads to monoclonal antibodies. Bioconjug Chem. 2010 Jan;21(1):5–13. doi:10.1021/bc9002019 PubMed PMID: 19769391.
9. Wang R, Hu B, Pan Z, Mo C, Zhao X, Liu G, et al. Antibody–Drug Conjugates (ADCs): current and future biopharmaceuticals. J Hematol OncolJ Hematol Oncol. 2025 Apr 30;18:51. doi:10.1186/s13045-025-01704-3 PubMed PMID: 40307936; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC12044742.
10. de Souza MM, Gini ALR, Moura JA, Scarim CB, Chin CM, dos Santos JL. Prodrug Approach as a Strategy to Enhance Drug Permeability. Pharmaceuticals. 2025 Feb 21;18(3):297. doi:10.3390/ph18030297 PubMed PMID: 40143076; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11946379.
11. Pettinato MC. Introduction to Antibody-Drug Conjugates. Antibodies. 2021 Oct 27;10(4):42. doi:10.3390/antib10040042 PubMed PMID: 34842621; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8628511.
12. Lu RM, Chiang HL, Yuan JP, Wang HH, Chen CY, Panda SS, et al. Technological advancements in antibody-based therapeutics for treatment of diseases. J Biomed Sci. 2025 Nov 12;32:98. doi:10.1186/s12929-025-01190-2 PubMed PMID: 41219972; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC12606834.
13. Chari RVJ, Miller ML, Widdison WC. Antibody-drug conjugates: an emerging concept in cancer therapy. Angew Chem. 2014 Apr 7;53(15):3796–827. doi:10.1002/anie.201307628 PubMed PMID: 24677743.
14. Polakis P. Antibody Drug Conjugates for Cancer Therapy. Pharmacol Rev. 2016 Jan;68(1):3–19. doi:10.1124/pr.114.009373 PubMed PMID: 26589413.
15. Sievers EL, Senter PD. Antibody-drug conjugates in cancer therapy. Annu Rev Med. 2013;64:15–29. doi:10.1146/annurev-med-050311-201823 PubMed PMID: 23043493.
16. Kovtun YV, Goldmacher VS. Cell killing by antibody-drug conjugates. Cancer Lett. 2007 Oct 8;255(2):232–40. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2007.04.010 PubMed PMID: 17553616.
17. Li F, Emmerton KK, Jonas M, Zhang X, Miyamoto JB, Setter JR, et al. Intracellular Released Payload Influences Potency and Bystander-Killing Effects of Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Preclinical Models. Cancer Res. 2016 May 1;76(9):2710–9. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1795 PubMed PMID: 26921341.
18. Huttunen KM, Raunio H, Rautio J. Prodrugs--from serendipity to rational design. Pharmacol Rev. 2011 Sep;63(3):750–71. doi:10.1124/pr.110.003459 PubMed PMID: 21737530.
19. (PDF) Prodrugs Design Based on Inter- and Intramolecular Processes. In: ResearchGate [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272565621_Prodrugs_Design_Based_on_Inter-_and_Intramolecular_Processes
20. Lin J. Prodrugs in Modern Medicine: Strategies, Applications, and Future Directions. Pharmacol Amp Pharm. 2025 Aug 29;16(8):303–22. doi:10.4236/pp.2025.168016
21. P. Mehta P, Chabukswar AR, C. Jagdale S. Carriers for Prodrug Synthesis: A Review. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2019;81(3). doi:10.36468/pharmaceutical-sciences.524
22. Stella VJ, Nti-Addae KW. Prodrug strategies to overcome poor water solubility. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2007 Jul 30;59(7):677–94. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2007.05.013 PubMed PMID: 17628203.
23. Pharmacokinetics of valaciclovir. ResearchGate. doi:10.1093/jac/dkh244
24. Asano D, Takakusa H, Nakai D. Oral Absorption of Middle-to-Large Molecules and Its Improvement, with a Focus on New Modality Drugs. Pharmaceutics. 2023 Dec 28;16(1):47. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics16010047 PubMed PMID: 38258058; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10820198.
25. Lillethorup IA, Hemmingsen AV, Qvortrup K. Prodrugs and their activation mechanisms for brain drug delivery. RSC Med Chem. 16(3):1037–48. doi:10.1039/d4md00788c PubMed PMID: 39829971; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11740913.
26. Wu G, Yuan Z, Chen M, Tang X, Wang F, Zhang D. Antibody–Drug Conjugates (ADCs): A Review of Structural Design, Technological Evolution, and Future Perspectives. Molecules. 2026 Apr 2;31(7):1180. doi:10.3390/molecules31071180 PubMed PMID: 41976220; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC13075013.
27. Yu J, Song Y, Tian W. How to select IgG subclasses in developing anti-tumor therapeutic antibodies. J Hematol OncolJ Hematol Oncol. 2020 May 5;13(1):45. doi:10.1186/s13045-020-00876-4 PubMed PMID: 32370812; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7201658.
28. Sun X, Ponte JF, Yoder NC, Laleau R, Coccia J, Lanieri L, et al. Effects of Drug-Antibody Ratio on Pharmacokinetics, Biodistribution, Efficacy, and Tolerability of Antibody-Maytansinoid Conjugates. Bioconjug Chem. 2017 May 17;28(5):1371–81. doi:10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.7b00062 PubMed PMID: 28388844.
29. Strop P, Liu SH, Dorywalska M, Delaria K, Dushin RG, Tran TT, et al. Location matters: site of conjugation modulates stability and pharmacokinetics of antibody drug conjugates. Chem Biol. 2013 Feb 21;20(2):161–7. doi:10.1016/j.chembiol.2013.01.010 PubMed PMID: 23438745.
30. Roopenian DC, Akilesh S. FcRn: the neonatal Fc receptor comes of age. Nat Rev Immunol. 2007 Sep;7(9):715–25. doi:10.1038/nri2155 PubMed PMID: 17703228.
31. McCombs JR, Owen SC. Antibody Drug Conjugates: Design and Selection of Linker, Payload and Conjugation Chemistry. AAPS J. 2015 Jan 22;17(2):339–51. doi:10.1208/s12248-014-9710-8 PubMed PMID: 25604608; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4365093.
32. Hamblett KJ, Senter PD, Chace DF, Sun MMC, Lenox J, Cerveny CG, et al. Effects of drug loading on the antitumor activity of a monoclonal antibody drug conjugate. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2004 Oct 15;10(20):7063–70. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0789 PubMed PMID: 15501986.
33. He J, Zeng X, Wang C, Wang E, Li Y. Antibody–drug conjugates in cancer therapy: mechanisms and clinical studies. MedComm. 2024 Jul 28;5(8):e671. doi:10.1002/mco2.671 PubMed PMID: 39070179; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11283588.
34. Esapa B, Jiang J, Cheung A, Chenoweth A, Thurston DE, Karagiannis SN. Target Antigen Attributes and Their Contributions to Clinically Approved Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) in Haematopoietic and Solid Cancers. Cancers. 2023 Mar 19;15(6):1845. doi:10.3390/cancers15061845 PubMed PMID: 36980732; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10046624.
35. Frontiers in Antibody–Drug Conjugates: Mechanisms, Design Innovations, and Clinical Applications in Targeted Cancer Therapy [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/19/2/324
36. Goldenberg DM, Cardillo TM, Govindan SV, Rossi EA, Sharkey RM. Trop-2 is a novel target for solid cancer therapy with sacituzumab govitecan (IMMU-132), an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC). Oncotarget. 2015 Jun 18;6(26):22496–512. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.4318 PubMed PMID: 26101915; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4673178.
37. Donaghy H. Effects of antibody, drug and linker on the preclinical and clinical toxicities of antibody-drug conjugates. mAbs. 2016;8(4):659–71. doi:10.1080/19420862.2016.1156829 PubMed PMID: 27045800; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4966843.
38. Nolting B. Linker technologies for antibody-drug conjugates. Methods Mol Biol. 2013;1045:71–100. doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-541-5_5 PubMed PMID: 23913142.
39. Lu J, Jiang F, Lu A, Zhang G. Linkers Having a Crucial Role in Antibody–Drug Conjugates. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Apr 14;17(4):561. doi:10.3390/ijms17040561 PubMed PMID: 27089329; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4849017.
40. The Chemistry Behind ADCs [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jul 2]. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/14/5/442
41. Balamkundu S, Liu CF. Lysosomal-Cleavable Peptide Linkers in Antibody–Drug Conjugates. Biomedicines. 2023 Nov;11(11):3080. doi:10.3390/biomedicines11113080
42. Beck A, Goetsch L, Dumontet C, Corvaïa N. Strategies and challenges for the next generation of antibody-drug conjugates. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017 May;16(5):315–37. doi:10.1038/nrd.2016.268 PubMed PMID: 28303026.
43. Trail PA, Willner D, Lasch SJ, Henderson AJ, Hofstead S, Casazza AM, et al. Cure of xenografted human carcinomas by BR96-doxorubicin immunoconjugates. Science. 1993 Jul 9;261(5118):212–5. doi:10.1126/science.8327892 PubMed PMID: 8327892.
44. Ravandi F, Estey EH, Appelbaum FR, Lo-Coco F, Schiffer CA, Larson RA, et al. Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin: Time to Resurrect? J Clin Oncol. 2012 Nov 10;30(32):3921–3. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.43.0132 PubMed PMID: 22987091; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4874205.
45. Dubowchik GM, Firestone RA, Padilla L, Willner D, Hofstead SJ, Mosure K, et al. Cathepsin B-labile dipeptide linkers for lysosomal release of doxorubicin from internalizing immunoconjugates: model studies of enzymatic drug release and antigen-specific in vitro anticancer activity. Bioconjug Chem. 2002;13(4):855–69. doi:10.1021/bc025536j PubMed PMID: 12121142.
46. Doronina SO, Mendelsohn BA, Bovee TD, Cerveny CG, Alley SC, Meyer DL, et al. Enhanced activity of monomethylauristatin F through monoclonal antibody delivery: effects of linker technology on efficacy and toxicity. Bioconjug Chem. 2006;17(1):114–24. doi:10.1021/bc0502917 PubMed PMID: 16417259.
47. Senter PD, Sievers EL. The discovery and development of brentuximab vedotin for use in relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Nat Biotechnol. 2012 Jul 10;30(7):631–7. doi:10.1038/nbt.2289 PubMed PMID: 22781692.
48. Thorpe PE, Wallace PM, Knowles PP, Relf MG, Brown AN, Watson GJ, et al. New coupling agents for the synthesis of immunotoxins containing a hindered disulfide bond with improved stability in vivo. Cancer Res. 1987 Nov 15;47(22):5924–31. PubMed PMID: 3499221.
49. Dal Corso A, Cazzamalli S, Gébleux R, Mattarella M, Neri D. Protease-Cleavable Linkers Modulate the Anticancer Activity of Non-Internalizing Antibody-Drug Conjugates. Bioconjug Chem. 2017 Jul 19;28(7):1826–33. doi:10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.7b00304 PubMed PMID: 28662334; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5521252.
50. Erickson HK, Park PU, Widdison WC, Kovtun YV, Garrett LM, Hoffman K, et al. Antibody-maytansinoid conjugates are activated in targeted cancer cells by lysosomal degradation and linker-dependent intracellular processing. Cancer Res. 2006 Apr 15;66(8):4426–33. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4489 PubMed PMID: 16618769.
51. Zhang J, Hu F, Aras O, Chai Y, An F. Small Molecule-Drug Conjugates: Opportunities for the Development of Targeted Anticancer Drugs. ChemMedChem. 2024 Jun 3;19(11):e202300720. doi:10.1002/cmdc.202300720 PubMed PMID: 38396351.
52. Lewis Phillips GD, Li G, Dugger DL, Crocker LM, Parsons KL, Mai E, et al. Targeting HER2-positive breast cancer with trastuzumab-DM1, an antibody-cytotoxic drug conjugate. Cancer Res. 2008 Nov 15;68(22):9280–90. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-1776 PubMed PMID: 19010901.
53. Verma S, Miles D, Gianni L, Krop IE, Welslau M, Baselga J, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 Nov 8;367(19):1783–91. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1209124 PubMed PMID: 23020162; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5125250.
54. Samantasinghar A, Sunildutt NP, Ahmed F, Soomro AM, Salih ARC, Parihar P, et al. A comprehensive review of key factors affecting the efficacy of antibody drug conjugate. Biomed Pharmacother. 2023 May 1;161:114408. doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114408
55. Schuster S, Juhász É, Halmos G, Neundorf I, Gennari C, Mező G. Development and Biochemical Characterization of Self-Immolative Linker Containing GnRH-III-Drug Conjugates. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 May 3;23(9):5071. doi:10.3390/ijms23095071 PubMed PMID: 35563462; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9105102.
56. Wang J, Liu M, Zhang X, Wang X, Xiong M, Luo D. Stimuli‐responsive linkers and their application in molecular imaging. Exploration. 2024 Jan 18;4(4):20230027. doi:10.1002/EXP.20230027 PubMed PMID: 39175888; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11335469.
57. Alradwan IA, Alnefaie MK, AL Fayez N, Aodah AH, Majrashi MA, Alturki M, et al. Strategic and Chemical Advances in Antibody–Drug Conjugates. Pharmaceutics. 2025 Sep 5;17(9):1164. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics17091164 PubMed PMID: 41012501; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC12473541.
58. Junutula JR, Raab H, Clark S, Bhakta S, Leipold DD, Weir S, et al. Site-specific conjugation of a cytotoxic drug to an antibody improves the therapeutic index. Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Aug;26(8):925–32. doi:10.1038/nbt.1480 PubMed PMID: 18641636.
59. Axup JY, Bajjuri KM, Ritland M, Hutchins BM, Kim CH, Kazane SA, et al. Synthesis of site-specific antibody-drug conjugates using unnatural amino acids. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 2;109(40):16101–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211023109 PubMed PMID: 22988081; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3479532.
60. Agarwal P, Bertozzi CR. Site-specific antibody-drug conjugates: the nexus of bioorthogonal chemistry, protein engineering, and drug development. Bioconjug Chem. 2015 Feb 18;26(2):176–92. doi:10.1021/bc5004982 PubMed PMID: 25494884; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4335810.
61. Bouchard H, Viskov C, Garcia-Echeverria C. Antibody-drug conjugates—a new wave of cancer drugs. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2014 Dec 1;24(23):5357–63. doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2014.10.021 PubMed PMID: 25455482.
62. Teicher BA, Chari RVJ. Antibody conjugate therapeutics: challenges and potential. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2011 Oct 15;17(20):6389–97. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1417 PubMed PMID: 22003066.
63. Flygare JA, Pillow TH, Aristoff P. Antibody-drug conjugates for the treatment of cancer. Chem Biol Drug Des. 2013 Jan;81(1):113–21. doi:10.1111/cbdd.12085 PubMed PMID: 23253133.
64. Doronina SO, Toki BE, Torgov MY, Mendelsohn BA, Cerveny CG, Chace DF, et al. Development of potent monoclonal antibody auristatin conjugates for cancer therapy. Nat Biotechnol. 2003 Jul;21(7):778–84. doi:10.1038/nbt832 PubMed PMID: 12778055.
65. Sanderson RJ, Hering MA, James SF, Sun MMC, Doronina SO, Siadak AW, et al. In vivo drug-linker stability of an anti-CD30 dipeptide-linked auristatin immunoconjugate. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2005 Jan 15;11(2 Pt 1):843–52. PubMed PMID: 15701875.
66. Erickson HK, Widdison WC, Mayo MF, Whiteman K, Audette C, Wilhelm SD, et al. Tumor delivery and in vivo processing of disulfide-linked and thioether-linked antibody-maytansinoid conjugates. Bioconjug Chem. 2010 Jan;21(1):84–92. doi:10.1021/bc900315y PubMed PMID: 19891424.
67. Gonzalez-Ochoa E, Veneziani AC, Oza AM. Mirvetuximab Soravtansine in Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2023;17:11795549231187264. doi:10.1177/11795549231187264 PubMed PMID: 37528890; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10387675.
68. Hinman LM, Hamann PR, Wallace R, Menendez AT, Durr FE, Upeslacis J. Preparation and characterization of monoclonal antibody conjugates of the calicheamicins: a novel and potent family of antitumor antibiotics. Cancer Res. 1993 Jul 15;53(14):3336–42. PubMed PMID: 8324745.
69. DiJoseph JF, Armellino DC, Boghaert ER, Khandke K, Dougher MM, Sridharan L, et al. Antibody-targeted chemotherapy with CMC-544: a CD22-targeted immunoconjugate of calicheamicin for the treatment of B-lymphoid malignancies. Blood. 2004 Mar 1;103(5):1807–14. doi:10.1182/blood-2003-07-2466 PubMed PMID: 14615373.
70. Hartley JA. The development of pyrrolobenzodiazepines as antitumour agents. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2011 Jun;20(6):733–44. doi:10.1517/13543784.2011.573477 PubMed PMID: 21457108.
71. Gregson SJ, Howard PW, Hartley JA, Brooks NA, Adams LJ, Jenkins TC, et al. Design, synthesis, and evaluation of a novel pyrrolobenzodiazepine DNA-interactive agent with highly efficient cross-linking ability and potent cytotoxicity. J Med Chem. 2001 Mar 1;44(5):737–48. doi:10.1021/jm001064n PubMed PMID: 11262084.
72. CC‐1065 and the Duocarmycins: Understanding their Biological Function through Mechanistic Studies - Boger - 1996 - Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English - Wiley Online Library [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jul 1]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.199614381
73. Giddens AC, Lee HH, Lu GL, Miller CK, Guo J, Lewis Phillips GD, et al. Analogues of DNA minor groove cross-linking agents incorporating aminoCBI, an amino derivative of the duocarmycins: Synthesis, cytotoxicity, and potential as payloads for antibody-drug conjugates. Bioorg Med Chem. 2016 Nov 15;24(22):6075–81. doi:10.1016/j.bmc.2016.09.068 PubMed PMID: 27745990.
74. Ogitani Y, Aida T, Hagihara K, Yamaguchi J, Ishii C, Harada N, et al. DS-8201a, A Novel HER2-Targeting ADC with a Novel DNA Topoisomerase I Inhibitor, Demonstrates a Promising Antitumor Efficacy with Differentiation from T-DM1. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2016 Oct 15;22(20):5097–108. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2822 PubMed PMID: 27026201.
75. Bardia A, Mayer IA, Vahdat LT, Tolaney SM, Isakoff SJ, Diamond JR, et al. Sacituzumab Govitecan-hziy in Refractory Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 21;380(8):741–51. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1814213 PubMed PMID: 30786188.
76. Cardillo TM, Govindan SV, Sharkey RM, Trisal P, Goldenberg DM. Humanized anti-Trop-2 IgG-SN-38 conjugate for effective treatment of diverse epithelial cancers: preclinical studies in human cancer xenograft models and monkeys. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2011 May 15;17(10):3157–69. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2939 PubMed PMID: 21372224; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10766325.
77. Ogitani Y, Hagihara K, Oitate M, Naito H, Agatsuma T. Bystander killing effect of DS‐8201a, a novel anti‐human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 antibody–drug conjugate, in tumors with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 heterogeneity. Cancer Sci. 2016 Jul;107(7):1039–46. doi:10.1111/cas.12966 PubMed PMID: 27166974; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4946713.
78. Modi S, Saura C, Yamashita T, Park YH, Kim SB, Tamura K, et al. Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Previously Treated HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 13;382(7):610–21. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1914510 PubMed PMID: 31825192; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7458671.
79. Tarantino P, Modi S, Tolaney SM, Cortés J, Hamilton EP, Kim SB, et al. Interstitial Lung Disease Induced by Anti-ERBB2 Antibody-Drug Conjugates: A Review. JAMA Oncol. 2021 Dec 1;7(12):1873–81. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3595 PubMed PMID: 34647966.
80. Dumontet C, Reichert JM, Senter PD, Lambert JM, Beck A. Antibody-drug conjugates come of age in oncology. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023 Aug;22(8):641–61. doi:10.1038/s41573-023-00709-2 PubMed PMID: 37308581.
81. Dragovich PS, Adhikari P, Blake RA, Blaquiere N, Chen J, Cheng YX, et al. Antibody-mediated delivery of chimeric protein degraders which target estrogen receptor alpha (ERα). Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2020 Feb 15;30(4):126907. doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2019.126907 PubMed PMID: 31902710.
82. Hemmerle T, Probst P, Giovannoni L, Green AJ, Meyer T, Neri D. The antibody-based targeted delivery of TNF in combination with doxorubicin eradicates sarcomas in mice and confers protective immunity. Br J Cancer. 2013 Sep 3;109(5):1206–13. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.421 PubMed PMID: 23887603; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3778281.
83. Sharkey RM, Goldenberg DM. Cancer radioimmunotherapy. Immunotherapy. 2011 Mar;3(3):349–70. doi:10.2217/imt.10.114 PubMed PMID: 21395378; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3123828.
84. Zhao P, Zhang Y, Li W, Jeanty C, Xiang G, Dong Y. Recent advances of antibody drug conjugates for clinical applications. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2020 Sep;10(9):1589–600. doi:10.1016/j.apsb.2020.04.012 PubMed PMID: 33088681; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7564033.
85. Kantarjian HM, DeAngelo DJ, Stelljes M, Martinelli G, Liedtke M, Stock W, et al. Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Versus Standard Care for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 25;375(8):740–53. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1509277 PubMed PMID: 27292104; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5594743.
86. Sehn LH, Herrera AF, Flowers CR, Kamdar MK, McMillan A, Hertzberg M, et al. Polatuzumab Vedotin in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 10;38(2):155–65. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00172 PubMed PMID: 31693429; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7032881.
87. Rosenberg JE, O’Donnell PH, Balar AV, McGregor BA, Heath EI, Yu EY, et al. Pivotal Trial of Enfortumab Vedotin in Urothelial Carcinoma After Platinum and Anti-Programmed Death 1/Programmed Death Ligand 1 Therapy. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 10;37(29):2592–600. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.01140 PubMed PMID: 31356140; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6784850.
88. Lonial S, Lee HC, Badros A, Trudel S, Nooka AK, Chari A, et al. Belantamab mafodotin for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-2): a two-arm, randomised, open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb;21(2):207–21. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30788-0 PubMed PMID: 31859245.
89. Caimi PF, Ai W, Alderuccio JP, Ardeshna KM, Hamadani M, Hess B, et al. Loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (LOTIS-2): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Jun;22(6):790–800. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00139-X PubMed PMID: 33989558.
90. Coleman RL, Lorusso D, Gennigens C, González-Martín A, Randall L, Cibula D, et al. Efficacy and safety of tisotumab vedotin in previously treated recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (innovaTV 204/GOG-3023/ENGOT-cx6): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2021 May;22(5):609–19. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00056-5 PubMed PMID: 33845034.
91. Emerging Targets and Therapeutics in Immuno-Oncology: Insights from Landscape Analysis. J Med Chem. 2024 Jun 13;67(11):8519–44. doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.4c00568
92. Lin C, Hadfield MJ, Santopietro A, Lagos G, Cheng L, El-Deiry WS, et al. The evolving landscape of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for treatment of prostate cancer. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2025 Nov 14;9:351. doi:10.1038/s41698-025-01131-0 PubMed PMID: 41238753.
93. Sadekar S, Figueroa I, Tabrizi M. Antibody Drug Conjugates: Application of Quantitative Pharmacology in Modality Design and Target Selection. AAPS J. 2015 May 2;17(4):828–36. doi:10.1208/s12248-015-9766-0 PubMed PMID: 25933599; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4476995.
94. Mahmood I. Clinical Pharmacology of Antibody-Drug Conjugates. Antibodies. 2021 May 21;10(2):20. doi:10.3390/antib10020020 PubMed PMID: 34063812; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8161445.
95. Markovic M, Ben-Shabat S, Dahan A. Prodrugs for Improved Drug Delivery: Lessons Learned from Recently Developed and Marketed Products. Pharmaceutics. 2020 Oct 29;12(11):1031. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics12111031 PubMed PMID: 33137942; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7692606.
96. Wang Y, Lu K, Xu Y, Xu S, Chu H, Fang X. Antibody-drug conjugates as immuno-oncology agents in colorectal cancer: targets, payloads, and therapeutic synergies. Front Immunol. 2025 Nov 3;16:1678907. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1678907 PubMed PMID: 41256852; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC12620403.
97. Metrangolo V, Engelholm LH. Antibody–Drug Conjugates: The Dynamic Evolution from Conventional to Next-Generation Constructs. Cancers. 2024 Jan 20;16(2):447. doi:10.3390/cancers16020447 PubMed PMID: 38275888; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10814585.
98. Loganzo F, Sung M, Gerber HP. Mechanisms of Resistance to Antibody-Drug Conjugates. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016 Dec;15(12):2825–34. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0408 PubMed PMID: 27780876.
99. Chen B, Zheng X, Wu J, Chen G, Yu J, Xu Y, et al. Antibody–drug conjugates in cancer therapy: current landscape, challenges, and future directions. Mol Cancer. 2025 Nov 3;24(1):279. doi:10.1186/s12943-025-02489-2
100. Bae S, Choi M, Choi H, Lee D, Na KJ, Lee D. Abstract 6259: Spatial transcriptomics-driven in silico modeling of therapeutic effects of antibody-drug conjugates and their association with treatment response in lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res. 2025 Apr 21;85(8_Supplement_1):6259. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2025-6259
101. de Almeida VM, Soares MBP, Santos-Filho OA. Exploring Experimental and In Silico Approaches for Antibody–Drug Conjugates in Oncology Therapies. Pharmaceuticals. 2025 Aug 14;18(8):1198. doi:10.3390/ph18081198 PubMed PMID: 40872592; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC12389400.