Back

Agent-based modeling demonstrates how target-independent processes supplement killing by antibody-drug conjugates in cancer therapy

Calopiz, M. C.; Linderman, J. J.; Thurber, G.

2025-12-26 systems biology
10.64898/2025.12.26.696346 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have had remarkable clinical success in recent years with multiple new approvals. However, for some ADCs, the response rates dont closely correlate with clinical target expression. One particular ADC targeting HER2, trastuzumab deruxtecan or T-DXd, is notable due to its success at expression levels ranging from high to low and ultralow. This raises the question of the relative contributions of target-independent mechanisms on ADC efficacy in the clinic, and several such mechanisms have been proposed. However, in vitro and preclinical data have different doses and exposures, making it challenging to quantitatively extrapolate preclinical data to the clinic. In this work, we use our computational hybrid agent-based model, SimADC, to simulate target-dependent and -independent mechanisms, scaling from mice to humans. We first demonstrate that CD8+ T cells can significantly contribute to tumor regression, especially when the ADC further activates the immune cells. Next, we test target-independent payload-driven mechanisms including: 1) Fc-mediated internalization of ADC by intratumoral macrophages and payload release to neighboring cancer cells, 2) free payload circulating in the blood and re-entering the tumor, and 3) extracellular linker cleavage and payload release due to an abundance of proteases in the tumor. We find that free payload in the blood and extracellular linker cleavage had low and moderate impacts, respectively, while macrophage uptake and payload release resulted in high levels of efficacy. This is due to the macrophages ability to sustain free payload in the tumor. Moderate and high HER2 expression were more efficacious than target-independent mechanisms. Overall, our simulations demonstrate that moderate to high HER2 expression, immune activation, or macrophage uptake and payload release are sufficient for T-DXd tumor regression. Additionally, SimADC provides a robust framework for modeling both target-dependent and target-independent mechanisms for any ADC, providing the opportunity to engineer more effective therapeutic agents. Author SummaryCancer is one of the most prevalent diseases in the world, impacting the lives of millions of people every year. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a form of targeted therapy that can deliver cytotoxic drugs directly to cancer cells, increasing efficacy. However, ADCs are complex to design and test, as each part of the ADC (targeting antibody, cytotoxic payload, and linker) must be optimally selected for delivery for each target and type of patient. Here, we studied ADCs using a computational model, which allowed us to simulate ADCs in varying cancer environments efficiently and economically. We validated our model using preclinical data to incorporate patient immune responses, target-independent payload release, and systemic payload uptake, allowing us to make accurate predictions in mice and extrapolate to human tumors. We compared multiple mechanisms by which ADCs can kill cancer cells to help identify the most effective methods. Besides high target expression, immune stimulation and target-independent release in the microenvironment can contribute to tumor regression. Investigating these mechanisms enables the design of ADCs and treatment regimens that maximize efficacy across a range of tumor types and target expression.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Systems Biology and Applications
99 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
2
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 4%
8.5%
3
Integrative Biology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
5
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.3%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.3%
7
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.3%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
4.0%
9
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
10
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
11
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
12
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
13
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 35%
1.5%
16
APL Bioengineering
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
17
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
18
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
207 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
20
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
21
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.9%
22
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
68 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
23
Journal of Controlled Release
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
24
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
25
ACS Nano
99 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
26
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
27
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
28
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
29
The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
158 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
30
Gigabyte
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%