MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409965915 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32050261

ADCs and TCE in SCLC Therapy: The Beginning of a New Era?

2025· review· en· W4409965915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paola Muscolino, Fausto Omero, Desirèe Speranza, Carla Infurna, Silvana Parisi, Vincenzo Cianci, Massimiliano Berretta, Alessandro Russo, Mariacarmela Santarpía

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMilestoneDrug developmentMonoclonal antibodyChemotherapyDrugImmunotherapyLung cancerIntensive care medicineOncologyCancerInternal medicineAntibodyImmunologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The therapeutic landscape for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has remained stationary for decades, with chemotherapy representing the sole treatment strategy, with a modest survival benefit. The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to standard first-line chemotherapy for SCLC was a considerable milestone. However, despite high overall response rates, this strategy failed to deliver long-term benefits for most patients, who continue to face a poor prognosis. Over the last few years, a deeper knowledge of the molecular biology of SCLC and the impressive advancements in drug development, have led to the generation of novel classes of systemic therapies that promise to revolutionize the current therapeutic scenario. Among the various therapeutic approaches in development, T-cell Engagers (TCE) and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) stand out due to their unique structural characteristics and mechanisms of action. These therapies represent a paradigm shift from traditional monoclonal antibody (mAb) and chemotherapy regimens, allowing direct engagement of multiple targets associated with tumor progression. In this review, we provide an overview of current drug development in SCLC, specifically focusing on these new agents, summarizing available evidence, and tracking future directions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.372
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207