Advertisement

Antibody–Drug Conjugate Development

  • Aakanksha Khandelwal
  • Haleh Saber
  • Marjorie A. Shapiro
  • Hong Zhao
Chapter
Part of the Cancer Drug Discovery and Development book series (CDD&D)

Abstract

Antibody–drug conjugate (ADC) development started about three decades ago with the hypothesis that toxins conjugated to antibodies would enhance antitumor activity and reduce toxicity by delivering toxins to specific tumor sites. Since then, the field has evolved to include potent small molecule drugs (SMD) and radiolabeled drugs conjugated to antibodies targeting both solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Improved ADC technology has paved the way for increased drug delivery to the target tumors and decreased normal tissue exposure to cytotoxic agents. Radio-immunoconjugates (RICs) present a different set of challenges leading to unique development pathways. Several factors need to be taken into consideration when developing RICs, such as decay of radioactivity, potentially higher exposure to normal tissue caused by lower specificity, and dehalogenation leading to a loss of signal. This chapter focuses on antibodies conjugated to SMDs.

Keywords

Toxicology Study Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin Small Molecule Drug Brentuximab Vedotin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Ducry L, Stump B (2010) Antibody-drug conjugates: linking cytotoxic payloads to monoclonal antibodies. Bioconjug Chem 21(1):5–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barok M et al (2011) Trastuzumab-DM1 causes tumor growth inhibition by mitotic catastrophe in trastuzumab-resistant breast cancer cells in vivo. Breast Cancer Res 13(2):R46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barok M et al (2007) Trastuzumab causes antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity-mediated growth inhibition of submacroscopic JIMT-1 breast cancer xenografts despite intrinsic drug resistance. Mol Cancer Ther 6(7):2065–2072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Remillard S et al (1975) Antimitotic activity of the potent tumor inhibitor maytansine. Science 189(4207):1002–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DiJoseph JF et al (2004) Antibody-targeted chemotherapy with CMC-544: a CD22-targeted immunoconjugate of calicheamicin for the treatment of B-lymphoid malignancies. Blood 103(5):1807–1814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Advani A et al (2010) Safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity of inotuzumab ozogamicin, a novel immunoconjugate for the treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: results of a phase I study. J Clin Oncol 28(12):2085–2093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Younes A et al (2010) Brentuximab vedotin (SGN-35) for relapsed CD30-positive lymphomas. N Engl J Med 363(19):1812–1821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    FDA (1997) Points to Consider in the Manufacture and Testing of Monoclonal Antibody Products for Human Use, CBER, Editor: Rockville; weblink last assessed January 3, 2012: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/OtherRecommendationsforManufacturers/UCM153182.pdf
  9. 9.
    FDA (2010) Guidance for Industry: ICH S9 Nonclinical Evaluation for Anticancer Pharmaceuticals. Weblink last assessed January 3, 2012: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm085389.pdf
  10. 10.
    Alley SC, Okeley NM, Senter PD (2010) Antibody-drug conjugates: targeted drug delivery for cancer. Curr Opin Chem Biol 14(4):529–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    FDA (1997) Guidance for Industry: ICH S6 Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology-Derived Pharmaceuticals. Weblink last assessed January 3, 2012: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm129171.pdf
  12. 12.
    FDA (1996) Guideline for Industry: ICH S2A Specific Aspects of Regulatory Genotoxicity Tests for Pharmaceuticals. Weblink last assessed January 3, 2012: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm074925.pdf
  13. 13.
    Bross PF et al (2001) Approval summary: gemtuzumab ozogamicin in relapsed acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Cancer Res 7(6):1490–1496PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Law CL et al (2004) Efficient elimination of B-lineage lymphomas by anti-CD20-auristatin conjugates. Clin Cancer Res 10(23):7842–7851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sutherland MS et al (2006) Lysosomal trafficking and cysteine protease metabolism confer target-specific cytotoxicity by peptide-linked anti-CD30-auristatin conjugates. J Biol Chem 281(15):10540–10547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alley SC et al (2008) Contribution of linker stability to the activities of anticancer immunoconjugates. Bioconjug Chem 19(3):759–765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis Phillips GD (2008) Targeting HER2-positive breast cancer with trastuzumab-DM1, an antibody-cytotoxic drug conjugate. Cancer Res 68(22):9280–9290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sanderson RJ et al (2005) In vivo drug-linker stability of an anti-CD30 dipeptide-linked auristatin immunoconjugate. Clin Cancer Res 11(2 Pt 1):843–852PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuang B, King L, Wang HF (2010) Therapeutic monoclonal antibody concentration monitoring: free or total? Bioanalysis 2(6):1125–1140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krop IE et al (2010) Phase I study of trastuzumab-DM1, an HER2 antibody-drug conjugate, given every 3 weeks to patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(16):2698–2704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeSilva B et al (2003) Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm Res 20(11):1885–1900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    FDA (2001) Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation. Weblink last assessed January 3, 2012: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070107.pdf
  23. 23.
    Hamblett KJ et al (2004) Effects of drug loading on the antitumor activity of a monoclonal antibody drug conjugate. Clin Cancer Res 10(20):7063–7070PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McDonagh CF et al (2006) Engineered antibody-drug conjugates with defined sites and stoichiometries of drug attachment. Protein Eng Des Sel 19(7):299–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Imanishi T, Makela O (1974) Inheritance of antibody specificity. I. Anti-(4-hydroxy-3-nitrophenyl)acetyl of the mouse primary response. J Exp Med 140(6):1498–1510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Imanishi T, Makela O (1974) Inheritance of fine-specificity in mouse anti-hapten antibodies. Ann Immunol (Paris) 125C(1–2):199–200Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bothwell AL et al (1981) Heavy chain variable region contribution to the NPb family of antibodies: somatic mutation evident in a gamma 2a variable region. Cell 24(3):625–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Berek C, Griffiths GM, Milstein C (1985) Molecular events during maturation of the immune response to oxazolone. Nature 316(6027):412–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paul WE, Siskind GW (1970) Hapten specificity of cellular immune responses as compared with the specificity of serum anti-hapten antibody. Immunology 18(6):921–930PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yamashita U, Kitagawa M (1974) Induction of anti-hapten antibody response by hapten-isologous carrier conjugate. I. Development of hapten-reactive helper cells by hapten-isologous carrier. Cell Immunol 14(2):182–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Harding FA et al (2010) The immunogenicity of humanized and fully human antibodies: residual immunogenicity resides in the CDR regions. MAbs 2(3):256–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McKoy JM et al (2008) Epoetin-associated pure red cell aplasia: past, present, and future considerations. Transfusion 48(8):1754–1762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buttel IC et al (2011) Taking immunogenicity assessment of therapeutic proteins to the next level. Biologicals 39(2):100–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Swann PG, Shapiro MA (2011) Regulatory considerations for development of bioanalytical assays for biotechnology products. Bioanalysis 3(6):597–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Getts DR et al (2010) Have we overestimated the benefit of human(ized) antibodies? MAbs 2(6):682–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    FDA (2009) Guidance for Industry: Assay Development for Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic Proteins. Weblink last assessed January 3, 2012: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM192750.pdf
  37. 37.
    FDA (2005) Guidance for Industry: Q5E Comparability of Biotechnological/Biological Products Subject to Changes in Their Manufacturing Process, CDER/CBER. Weblink last assessed January 3, 2012: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm128076.pdf
  38. 38.
    FDA (2010) Draft Guidance for Industry: Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Impaired Renal Function—Study Design, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosing and Labeling. 2010; weblink last assessed January 3, 2012: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM204959.pdf
  39. 39.
    FDA (2003) Guidance for Industry: Exposure-Response Relationships—Study Design, Data Analysis, and Regulatory Applications. Weblink last assessed January 3, 2012: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm072109.pdf
  40. 40.
    FDA (1999) Guidance for Industry: Population Pharmacokinetics. Weblink last assessed January 3, 2012: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/WomensHealthResearch/UCM133184.pdf
  41. 41.
    Rodriguez I et al (2010) Electrocardiographic assessment for therapeutic proteins—scientific discussion. Am Heart J 160(4):627–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Curigliano G et al (2008) Drug-induced QTc interval prolongation: a proposal towards an efficient and safe anticancer drug development. Eur J Cancer 44(4):494–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rock EP et al (2009) Assessing proarrhythmic potential of drugs when optimal studies are infeasible. Am Heart J 157(5):827–836, 836.e1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sarapa N, Britto MR (2008) Challenges of characterizing proarrhythmic risk due to QTc prolongation induced by nonadjuvant anticancer agents. Expert Opin Drug Saf 7(3):305–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lalonde RL, Honig P (2008) Clinical pharmacology in the era of biotherapeutics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 84(5):533–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mould DR, Green B (2010) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of monoclonal antibodies: concepts and lessons for drug development. BioDrugs 24(1):23–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aakanksha Khandelwal
    • 1
  • Haleh Saber
    • 1
  • Marjorie A. Shapiro
    • 1
  • Hong Zhao
    • 1
  1. 1.Food and Drug Administration (formerly)Silver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations