Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34440076›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2021

Advances and Limitations of Antibody Drug Conjugates for Cancer.

Candice Maria Mckertish, Veysel Kayser

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

98 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 145 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Chemical Biology 2025: Highlights From the Ch/Bi145 Course at Caltech.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Candice Maria MckertishSydney School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6497-7502
Veysel KayserSydney School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1310-9534
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The popularity of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) has increased in recent years, mainly due to their unrivalled efficacy and specificity over chemotherapy agents. The success of the ADC is partly based on the stability and successful cleavage of selective linkers for the delivery of the payload. The current research focuses on overcoming intrinsic shortcomings that impact the successful development of ADCs. This review summarizes marketed and recently approved ADCs, compares the features of various linker designs and payloads commonly used for ADC conjugation, and outlines cancer specific ADCs that are currently in late-stage clinical trials for the treatment of cancer. In addition, it addresses the issues surrounding drug resistance and strategies to overcome resistance, the impact of a narrow therapeutic index on treatment outcomes, the impact of drug-antibody ratio (DAR) and hydrophobicity on ADC clearance and protein aggregation.

Indexed as

ADC clearanceantibody drug conjugatesdrug resistancelinkerspayloadsprotein aggregationtarget specifictherapeutic index

Identifiers

PMID34440076
PMCPMC8389690
OpenAlexW3185894875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.