What Is the Current State of ADC Treatment in EGFR-Amplified Glioblastoma?

Fact checked by" Justin Mancini
Commentary
Video

Sonia Jain, PhD, stated that depatuxizumab mafodotin, ABBV-221, and ABBV-321 were the 3 most prominent ADCs in EGFR-amplified glioblastoma.

EGFR amplification can be observed in half the population of patients who have glioblastoma, according to Sonia Jain, PhD. For that reason, developing an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) that targets EGFR is important, although current patient outcomes are not optimal.

During the 16th World ADC summit in San Diego, California, Jain, a postdoctoral fellow and research associate at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, presented a seminar titled “Assessing Safety & PK Profiles of ADCs Against Glioblastoma to Understand Reasons for Observed Toxicity & Explore Mitigation Strategies.” Following the seminar, CancerNetwork® spoke with Jain about the state of ADCs in glioblastoma.

During the discussion, she also spoke about the current state of EGFR-directed ADCs, highlighting depatuxizumab mafodotin (ABT-414), ABBV-221, and ABBV-321 as notable examples. Depatuxizumab mafodotin was evaluated in the phase 3 Intellance1 trial (NCT02573324) in patients with newly diagnosed EGFR-amplified glioblastoma. As Jain said, this trial did not meet significance for overall survival.

Ultimately, Jain concluded by posing a single question: “What can we improve in the future?”

Transcript:

In glioblastoma, half of the population has EGFR amplification. The ADC field—this work was started 5 to 7 years ago––at that time, an ADC developed by AbbVie was targeting EGFR, and there were no good indicators of how [pharmacokinetics] looked in mouse models. [The rationale] was to improve patient outcomes…which is not great as of now.

The 3 EGFR-targeting ADCs that I have tested have been in clinical trials. [Depatuxizumab mafodotin] has been the safest. [ABBV-221] and [ABBV-321] basically showed a bit of toxicity, and the trial was stopped in phase 1.

[Depatuxizumab mafodotin] performed well in the early clinical and preclinical phases, but it failed to provide overall survival in the phase 3 clinical trial. That’s why it is not on the market. It’s not benefiting patients. That’s where our work most relies upon: What can we improve in the future?

Reference

Jain S. Assessing safety & PK profiles of ADCs against glioblastoma to understand reasons for observed toxicity & explore mitigation strategies. Presented at: 16th World ADC; November 3-6, 2025; San Diego, CA.

Recent Videos
Findings from David Rimm, MD, PhD, suggest that there may be an inverse relationship between HER2 and TROP2 expression among patients with breast cancer.
Tissue samples collected from patients with breast cancer during treatment may help explore therapy selection and predict toxicities.
The mechanism of CTO1681 may allow it to reduce the production of a broad range of proinflammatory cytokines in DLBCL.
Younger and fitter patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma were more likely to receive bispecific antibodies in community oncology settings.
Mechanistic treatment benefits were observed in the phase 2 STEM trial for patients with multiple myeloma.
Data from a retrospective cohort study showed that one-fifth of patients with multiple myeloma received bispecific antibodies in rural community settings.
Being able to treat patients with cevostamab who have multiple myeloma after 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy vs 4 lines may allow for better outcomes.
Related Content