Loading
Life sciences · Review
Frontiers in Immunology · October 7, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Review.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Objective Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are being investigated in advanced small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), but the evidence is dominated by early-phase studies conducted in non-exchangeable treatment settings. We evaluated the activity and toxicity of ADCs while separating later-line monotherapy from frontline combination therapy, later-line combination therapy, and post-induction maintenance. Methods PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception and in 28 August 2026. ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched on 28 August 2026. We constructed an arm-level dataset that recorded regimen, dose, clinical context, target, outcome definition, numerator, denominator, analysis set, and source. The primary quantitative synthesis was restricted to second-line or later ADC monotherapy; other clinical contexts were summarized descriptively. Single-arm proportions were synthesized using a binomial–normal random-intercept generalized linear mixed model on the logit scale. We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between-study variance, heterogeneity, and 95% prediction intervals. An inverse-variance logit random-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Hartung–Knapp inference was used as a sensitivity analysis. Fixed-time Kaplan–Meier survival estimates and inconsistently defined common adverse events were not pooled. Results 16 trial families evaluating eight ADCs across five target classes met the eligibility criteria. In the primary later-line monotherapy analysis, the pooled ORR was 25.7% (95% CI, 16.4%–37.9%), and the pooled DCR was 72.7% (95% CI, 60.7%–82.2%). The pooled incidences of grade ≥3 TEAEs and grade ≥3 TRAEs were 62.8% (95% CI, 59.6%–65.9%) and 45.5% (95% CI, 35.5%–56.0%), respectively. The prediction intervals for ORR, DCR, and grade ≥3 TRAEs were wide. Proportions observed in a new study may therefore differ substantially from the pooled estimates. Frontline combinations, later-line combinations, and maintenance therapy yielded context-specific signals but were not compared with later-line monotherapy. Target-stratified analyses were exploratory; B7-H3 and DLL3 estimates were based on small, non-comparative groups, whereas Trop-2 and SEZ6 were not pooled because fewer than three studies were available. Conclusions Later-line ADC monotherapy showed antitumor activity but frequent clinically important toxicity, with substantial between-study variation. The evidence does not establish superiority by treatment line, regimen, agent, or molecular target; single-arm response estimates also do not demonstrate a survival benefit. Randomized, context-specific trials using harmonized efficacy and safety definitions are needed.