In Part 1 of this series, we explored why the ADC land grab is happening now and how ADCs fit into the broader oncology landscape.
In Part 2, we examined 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 interpret those deals.
In this fifth part, we shift our focus to geography and the multipolarization of ADC players. We will examine how the rise of China and other Asian ADC companies is reshaping the global ADC landscape, and ask:
- Why have Chinese and Asian ADC players gained visibility so quickly?
- How are US and European pharma companies integrating Asian ADCs into their portfolios?
- What are the realistic barriers—regulatory, quality, geopolitical—to globalizing these assets?
- Where can Japanese companies and investors position themselves in this evolving map?
For newer readers, the goal is to provide a basic map of “China/Asia ADCs and the global market.” For practitioners, we aim to offer concrete lenses for evaluating and partnering with Asian ADC players.
The Rise of China and Asian ADC Players: What Is Actually Happening?
China’s Fast-growing ADC Pipelines
One of the most striking developments over the last several years has been the rapid expansion of China-origin ADC pipelines.
- Multiple ADCs targeting popular antigens such as HER2, TROP2, and CLDN18.2 are in clinical development.
- For the same target, several variants differ in antibody choice, DAR, payload, and linker chemistry.
- Large oncology centers and patient volumes enable relatively rapid proof-of-concept studies.
Combined with cost advantages in clinical operations, this environment makes it feasible to pursue “parallel exploration” across many target–payload–linker combinations, thickening the pipeline in just a few years.
Surrounding Ecosystems: Korea, Singapore, India, and Others
While China attracts the most attention, other Asian ecosystems also play important roles:
- Korea: leveraging experience in biologics and biosimilars to expand into ADCs, with strong CDMO capacity.
- Singapore: serving as an R&D and clinical hub for multinational companies and regional trials.
- India: drawing on its strengths in small-molecule and API synthesis to contribute payloads, intermediates, and cost-efficient CMC solutions.
These ecosystems can function as manufacturing, development, and regulatory hubs that connect China-origin ADCs with global partners.
Strengths of China/Asia ADCs: Why Have They Grown So Fast?
Strength 1: Development Speed and Cost Structure
The most obvious strength is development speed and cost structure.
- Large patient pools allow rapid enrollment and proof-of-concept studies, sometimes at single or few sites.
- Lower clinical and personnel costs make it feasible to run multiple exploratory trials in parallel.
- It becomes realistic to test multiple structural variants for the same target simultaneously.
This environment enables “search by quantity” across target–payload–linker combinations. As a result, the number and diversity of ADC programs can expand rapidly.
Strength 2: Target Choices and Local Clinical Knowledge
A second strength is the combination of target choices and local clinical knowledge.
- High incidence of certain cancers in Asia (e.g., GI cancers, liver cancer) leads to rich clinical experience in these disease areas.
- Close ties with local diagnostic platforms and registries support identification of relevant patient subgroups.
- For some targets, real-world experience may accumulate earlier in Asia than in Western markets.
This can translate into ADC programs that are tightly coupled with local biomarker and diagnostic practices, sometimes creating unique positioning relative to Western competitors.
Strength 3: Deal-friendly Business Models
Many Chinese and Asian ADC companies operate with partnering in mind from the outset. Typical patterns include:
- retaining rights in China/Asia while out-licensing US/EU or global rights,
- designing trials and development plans with future global filings in mind,
- offering packages that include CDMO and API supply as part of the deal.
This makes it easier for Western pharma companies to consider regional licenses plus co-development or co-promotion structures as one option within their broader ADC strategy.
Risks and Challenges: Real-world Barriers to Globalization
Challenge 1: CMC, Quality, and Reproducibility
Because ADCs combine biologics and small-molecule chemistry, CMC and quality control are particularly demanding. Key issues include:
- consistency and impurity control for payloads, linkers, and antibodies,
- process robustness and batch-to-batch variability at commercial scale,
- standardization of quality across multiple sites and companies involved in manufacturing.
Some China-origin ADCs are reaching or approaching global regulatory standards, but overall the space remains heterogeneous, and each program must be evaluated case by case.
Challenge 2: International Acceptability of Clinical Data
Differences in trial design, endpoints, and follow-up can pose challenges for global acceptance of clinical data:
- how far data from largely single-country, single-ethnicity trials can be extrapolated globally,
- differences in control arms, lines of therapy, and background standard of care,
- adequacy of safety signal detection and follow-up duration.
These are not “China-specific” issues in a strict sense—they arise in many regional programs—but they are especially salient when the goal is approval in the US, EU, or Japan. Partners and investors must take a data-driven, program-by-program view rather than relying on simplistic labels.
Challenge 3: Geopolitics, Data, and Technology Transfer
Increasingly, geopolitical factors—US–China relations, export controls, data localization—also affect ADC strategies:
- export controls on certain technologies or payload components,
- restrictions on cross-border transfer of patient-level data,
- uncertainties around IP protection and dispute resolution across jurisdictions.
These factors influence not only whether deals can be signed, but also whether they can be executed smoothly over time. They therefore need to be reflected in contract design, governance, and portfolio-level risk management.
Impact on Global Deal Structures: Toward a Multipolar ADC World
More Regional Carve-outs and Split-rights Deals
The rise of China and Asian ADCs has contributed to an increase in regional carve-out deals. In many cases:
- Chinese companies retain rights in mainland China,
- global pharma companies take rights in the US, EU, and other regions,
- rights in Japan and the rest of Asia are allocated depending on capabilities and prior relationships.
The result is that a single ADC may be developed and commercialized by different partner constellations in different regions, which complicates development plans, manufacturing, and branding strategies.
“Translation Hubs” as Third-party Players
Against a backdrop of regulatory and geopolitical asymmetries, third-party “translation hubs” are becoming more important:
- Singapore and Korea as hubs for multi-regional clinical trials,
- Japan and parts of Europe as hubs for quality, CMC, and regulatory alignment,
- Korean, Indian, and Singaporean CDMOs as manufacturing nodes within global ADC supply chains.
These hubs can act as bridges between China-origin ADCs and Western pharma, helping to align standards and enable more complex multi-country ADC ecosystems.
Positioning for Japanese Companies and Investors
Position 1: A “Trust Hub” for Quality and Regulation
Japanese pharma companies, CROs, and CDMOs enjoy strong reputations for quality, regulatory compliance, and safety assessment. In the ADC era, these strengths could translate into roles such as:
- a quality and regulatory “trust hub” between Chinese/Asian ADCs and Western regulators,
- a site for bridging studies and additional safety work aimed at global approvals,
- a CDMO base for CMC optimization and commercial-scale manufacturing redesign.
This is less about competing on volume and more about competing on reliability, nuance, and long-term trust.
Position 2: Redesigning Target and Disease Portfolios
For Japanese pharma, the rise of Asian ADCs also invites portfolio-level questions:
- In which disease areas should we build fully in-house ADC capabilities?
- Where should we complement our portfolios via in-licensing from China/Asia ADC players?
- Where should we rely on other modalities (bispecifics, cell therapies, radiopharmaceuticals) instead of ADCs?
Clarifying this division of labor across modalities and geographies can help avoid both under- and over-exposure to ADCs in any one segment.
Position 3: Investor Access Strategies
For corporate venture arms, independent VCs, and institutional investors, access to China/Asia ADCs can be structured in several ways:
- direct equity in selected ADC biotechs,
- LP commitments to funds specialized in Chinese or Asian biotech,
- co-investments alongside global pharma partners or established local investors.
At the same time, investors must weigh regulatory and geopolitical risks, as well as the realism of exit paths (local and global IPOs, M&A). The key question becomes: “How much upside do we want from Asian ADCs, and how tightly do we want to bound the risk?”
Possible ADC Maps for the Next 5–10 Years
Scenario A: A Few China-origin ADCs Become True Global Majors
In one scenario, a subset of China-origin ADCs reach global standards in CMC and clinical evidence, gain approvals in the US, EU, and Japan, and become truly global major products. In this world, ADC competition becomes fully multipolar, and the player map looks very different from today’s US/EU-dominated picture.
Scenario B: Regional “Local ADCs” Coexist
Another scenario is that geopolitical and regulatory factors lead to more localized ADC lineups. In this world, the ADCs used in mainland China differ substantially from those used in the US, EU, or Japan, and global trial and approval strategies become more complex and fragmented.
Scenario C: ADCs Stabilize as One Element in a Modality Mix
In any scenario, ADCs are likely to stabilize as one important element within a broader oncology modality mix, alongside bispecific antibodies, radiopharmaceuticals, and cell therapies. The core strategic question for each company and region is not “ADC or not” but rather: “In which indications and regions, and to what extent, should we rely on ADCs relative to other modalities?”
My Reflections
The rise of China and Asian ADCs can no longer be captured by simple binaries such as “fast and cheap vs slow and high quality.” Program quality, design, and data robustness now vary widely across companies and assets. Some programs are clearly approaching global standards; others are optimized for local markets. The key is to move beyond origin-based labels and instead evaluate each ADC on structure, data, CMC, and portfolio context.
At the same time, multipolarization creates opportunities as well as risks. For Japan, this is not only a matter of being “affected by” changes in China or the US; it is also a chance to act as a translation, quality, and portfolio hub in the ADC era. How Japanese organizations choose to position their scientific, development, manufacturing, and financial strengths will largely determine their visibility and influence in the next decade of ADC competition.
In Part 6, we will broaden the lens to examine how ADCs interact with other modalities such as bispecific antibodies, cell therapies, and radiopharmaceuticals, and discuss how to design oncology portfolios that do not over-rely on ADCs alone.
This article has been edited by the Morningglorysciences team.
Related Articles
Comments