In Part 1, we explored why the ADC land grab is happening now and how ADCs fit into the broader oncology landscape.
In Part 2, we reviewed ADC design—antibody, payload, linker, conjugation—and discussed what people mean by first-, second-, and “third-generation” ADCs.
In Part 3, we connected patent cliffs to the ADC rush and framed ADCs as part of long-term big pharma portfolio strategies.
In Part 4, we looked at the structures of ADC transactions—M&A, licensing, co-development, and CDMO agreements—and offered practical ways to read those deals.
In Part 5, we examined the rise of Chinese and other Asian ADC players, their impact on global deal structures, and potential roles for Japan.
In Part 6, we discussed how ADCs interact with other modalities such as bispecific antibody drugs, cell therapies, and radiopharmaceuticals, and how to design portfolios that do not over-rely on ADCs alone.
In this final Part 7, we bring these threads together and ask two overarching questions:
- Where does the ADC land grab stand as of 2025?
- How might ADCs evolve toward the 2030s under different strategic and geopolitical conditions?
The goal is twofold: to serve as a “recap” of the series for newer readers, and to offer a starting point for 2030-oriented discussions among industry practitioners, investors, and advisors.
Where We Stand in 2025: Five Key Takeaways
1) Post-Enhertu World: ADCs Are Now a Proven Modality
First, we can say with some confidence that ADCs have moved past the “does this work?” stage. The trajectory of agents such as Enhertu has shown that:
- ADCs can deliver meaningful clinical benefit in populations with high unmet need,
- indication and line extensions can substantially expand the addressable market,
- regulators are prepared to incorporate ADCs into evolving oncology standards under defined frameworks.
The central questions have shifted from “Do ADCs work?” to “For which patients, at which time, with which ADC, and in combination with what?”
2) ADCs as Bridges Across Patent Cliffs
As we discussed in Part 3, many large pharma companies face major patent cliffs in the late 2020s and early 2030s. Within this context, ADCs are being positioned as:
- bridges to smooth oncology revenue troughs,
- growth engines anchored in a validated but still-evolving modality,
- platforms from which next-generation pipelines can be built.
At the same time, companies are increasingly aware that today’s ADCs will themselves face patent cliffs in the 2030s, which is already influencing portfolio and deal design.
3) Larger, More Complex Deals Around Platforms and Portfolios
Part 4 highlighted that ADC-related deals are not only getting larger; they are also getting more complex:
- headline values and upfronts are increasing,
- transactions often include portfolios and platforms rather than single assets,
- split-rights, regional carve-outs, and co-development/co-promotion structures are more common.
In other words, the mindset is shifting from “buying one ADC” to “securing access to an ADC platform and its future options”.
4) Multipolarization Driven by China and Other Asian Players
As discussed in Part 5, Chinese and other Asian ADC players are gaining prominence by leveraging:
- favorable development speed and cost structures,
- target choices and local clinical knowledge in specific tumor types,
- business models geared toward partnering and out-licensing.
This has pushed the ADC landscape toward multipolarity. Global deal structures increasingly have to account for divergent regulatory regimes, geopolitics, and data/technology-transfer constraints.
5) ADCs Within a Broader Modality Mix
Finally, Part 6 emphasized that ADCs are now competing and collaborating with:
- bispecific antibody drugs,
- cell therapies (e.g., CAR-T),
- radiopharmaceuticals and radiolabeled antibodies,
- small-molecule oral therapies.
This means ADCs must be evaluated not just against other ADCs, but within a broader “modality mix” framework that spans biology, clinical practice, and health economics.
Three Illustrative Scenarios for the 2030s
Scenario 1: ADCs Become a Core Oncology Modality
In the first scenario, the current trajectory continues and ADCs become a core modality in oncology by the early 2030s:
- for many major tumor types, at least one ADC becomes part of standard-of-care regimens,
- multiple ADCs appear on the “regular prescription list” of medical oncologists,
- companies with strong ADC platforms become central players in oncology strategy.
In this world, ADC success does not displace other modalities; instead, ADCs provide essential building blocks for rational combinations and sequences with immunotherapies, targeted agents, and cell therapies.
Scenario 2: ADCs Converge on Specific Niches and Combinations
In the second scenario, ADCs achieve solid but more limited success, constrained by:
- toxicity, resistance, cost, and manufacturing complexity,
- rapid progress in competing modalities such as bispecifics and cell therapies.
Here, ADCs settle into specific niches and combination contexts:
- strong roles in clearly defined biomarker-positive populations with limited prior options,
- important but not dominant roles where other modalities outcompete ADCs in early lines or certain tumor types.
Market impact remains meaningful, but the narrative shifts away from “ADC everywhere” toward a more selective, indication- and line-specific view.
Scenario 3: ADCs Enter a “Second Wave” as a Mature Modality
In the third scenario, by the 2030s ADCs resemble other major modalities that have already gone through a first wave of enthusiasm, such as checkpoint inhibitors or early CAR-Ts.
- a first generation of ADCs matures and faces its own patent cliffs,
- a “second wave” emerges, built on new payloads, linkers, targets, and combination strategies.
In this world, the central questions are less about “if” and more about “how to refine patient selection, trial design, and portfolio architecture in light of what we have learned”.
What Different Stakeholders Should Prepare for
1) Pharma Companies: Redefine ADC Strategy as Portfolio Architecture
For pharma, the key is to treat ADCs not as isolated projects but as elements of portfolio architecture:
- which tumor types and targets justify prioritizing ADCs,
- how ADCs should share roles with bispecifics, cell therapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and small molecules,
- how to balance internal ADC development with in-licensing and M&A.
In other words, the question is shifting from “Should we do ADCs?” to “Where, and in what form, do ADCs make strategic sense within our overall modality mix?”
2) Biotechs: Positioning and Exit Design
For ADC-focused biotechs, clarity on positioning and exit design is critical:
- how far to take programs in-house (preclinical, Phase 1, Phase 2, etc.),
- when and with whom to partner to maximize value creation,
- whether to frame capabilities around single assets or platform technologies (payloads, linkers, conjugation, CMC).
Competition and collaboration with China/Asia ADC players will likely be a major theme in the second half of the 2020s, both scientifically and strategically.
3) Investors: Managing the Quantity and Quality of ADC Exposure
For investors, ADCs represent high-upside opportunities but also valuation volatility and geopolitical risk. Key questions include:
- what share of the overall portfolio should be allocated to ADC-related exposure,
- how to balance platform-centric vs single-asset investments,
- how to access China/Asia ADCs (direct equity, specialist funds, co-investments) while bounding risk.
The issue is not only “how much to bet on ADCs” but also “in what structures and geographies”.
4) Advisors and Analysts: Separating Hype from Structural Trends
For consultants and analysts, the challenge is to separate short-term hype from long-term structural trajectories:
- near-term news flow and valuation swings,
- medium- to long-term dynamics around patent cliffs, modality mixes, and geopolitics.
High-quality advice helps clients clarify which decisions must be made now, which options should remain open, and how ADCs fit into a broader strategic narrative that goes beyond the current wave of headlines.
My Reflections
It is tempting, whenever a modality gains momentum, to see it as a universal answer. ADCs are powerful and, in some settings, transformative. But over the time horizons that matter—to patients, to R&D organizations, and to health systems—over-concentration on any single modality is risky. Even within the same indication and target, the most appropriate choice among ADCs, bispecific antibody drugs, cell therapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and small molecules can differ depending on tumor biology, disease stage, clinical infrastructure, and economic realities. The most robust strategies therefore begin with a portfolio view: Where do ADCs genuinely add unique value, and where should other modalities lead?
At the same time, the success of ADCs enlarges rather than shrinks the design space. It opens up new possibilities for combinations, rational sequences, and cross-modality synergies—for example, debulking with ADCs before cell therapy, or pairing ADCs with checkpoint inhibitors or targeted agents in carefully selected populations. Over the coming decade, I suspect that the defining competition will not simply be “ADC vs non-ADC,” but which organizations can orchestrate multiple modalities into coherent, patient-centered treatment pathways. Technical excellence in ADCs will be necessary, but not sufficient; what will ultimately differentiate leaders is the quality of their overall portfolio design and their discipline in execution.
This article has been edited by the Morningglorysciences team.
Related Articles
Comments