The pharmaceutical industry is currently gripped by a high-stakes "gold rush" centered on a new class of dual-action therapeutics: bispecific antibodies that simultaneously target PD-1 (programmed cell death protein 1) and VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor). Triggered by the clinical success of ivonescimab, which famously outperformed Merck’s blockbuster Keytruda in a 2024 lung cancer trial, major players—including AbbVie, BioNTech, and Pfizer—have collectively committed billions of dollars to the space.
Yet, as the fervor intensifies, a growing chorus of market analysts is urging caution. While lung cancer remains the primary battlefield for these assets, emerging evidence suggests that the clinical profile of these drugs may be better suited for different oncological indications. As global trials begin to paint a more nuanced—and occasionally inconsistent—picture of efficacy, the industry faces a critical question: Is the pursuit of lung cancer dominance a strategic masterstroke, or a costly misallocation of resources?
The Rise of the Bispecific: A Chronology of the PD-1/VEGF Wave
The current obsession with PD-1/VEGF bispecifics did not happen in a vacuum. It represents the logical evolution of immuno-oncology. By combining the immune-boosting properties of a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor with the anti-angiogenic effects of a VEGF blocker, developers are aiming to "normalize" the tumor microenvironment, making it more hospitable to the immune system’s attack.
Key Milestones in the Development Timeline
- Early 2024: Ivonescimab, developed by Akeso and licensed to Summit Therapeutics, captures the industry’s attention by beating Keytruda in a head-to-head lung cancer study. This win serves as the catalyst for a flurry of licensing deals and R&D pivots.
- January 2026: AbbVie and RemeGen announce an exclusive licensing agreement to co-develop a novel bispecific antibody for advanced solid tumors, signaling that the "smart money" is still pouring into the space despite emerging questions.
- Mid-2025: Global trial data for ivonescimab releases a "split verdict." While showing promise in progression-free survival (PFS) for EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the drug fails to reach statistical significance in reducing the risk of death compared to chemotherapy alone in broader populations.
- Present Day: Major pharmaceutical firms, including BioNTech and Bristol Myers Squibb, are actively expanding their clinical footprints, diversifying away from lung-only strategies to test these molecules in colorectal, liver, and breast cancers.
The Lung Cancer Paradox: Why the Market May Be Oversaturated
Lung cancer is the crown jewel of oncology, representing one of the largest addressable markets by dollar value. However, Souro Chowdhury, a senior business analyst at Lifescience Dynamics, suggests that the industry’s laser focus on this indication may be driven more by financial projections than by biological synergy.
"There’s a lot of excitement about their application in lung cancer, but that’s not necessarily the right or the best indication for this type of drug," Chowdhury notes.
The complexity of the lung cancer landscape is compounded by the demographic profiles of trial participants. Much of the early, highly positive data for ivonescimab originated from China-based phase 3 trials. However, these cohorts were heavily skewed toward a male, smoking population. In contrast, the Western patient demographic for lung cancer is often younger, more heterogeneous, and presents with different genetic mutations.
When developers apply data from a homogeneous, male-dominant Chinese cohort to a diverse global population, the clinical results often fail to replicate with the same efficacy. This "demographic mismatch" explains why some trials have reported stellar progression-free survival data while simultaneously failing to show significant overall survival benefits in global settings.
Beyond the Lungs: Finding the True Therapeutic Sweet Spot
If lung cancer is a crowded, potentially suboptimal arena, where should the industry turn? According to clinical evidence, the VEGF pathway is frequently more critical in other tumor types.
Hepatocellular Carcinoma (Liver Cancer)
Liver tumors are heavily reliant on the VEGF protein pathway to establish blood supply and sustain growth. By utilizing a bispecific agent that inhibits both VEGF and PD-1, clinicians may be able to cut off the tumor’s nutrient supply while simultaneously "unlocking" the immune system. This dual-pronged attack is theoretically more potent in liver cancers than in the complex, mutation-heavy environment of NSCLC.
Gastric and Colorectal Cancers
Gastric cancers have also emerged as high-potential targets. Emerging phase 3 data suggests that the mechanism of action inherent in bispecifics may provide a durable response in gastrointestinal malignancies where standard-of-care options are limited.
BioNTech’s candidate, pumitamig, which targets VEGF and PD-L1, is currently being tested in a broader range of indications, including breast and colorectal cancers. This suggests that even the most bullish developers are beginning to hedge their bets, recognizing that if the lung cancer "gold mine" doesn’t yield the promised returns, these drugs must have secondary markets to justify their development costs.
Implications: Strategic Derisking or Desperation?
The shift toward testing bispecifics in non-lung indications can be interpreted in two ways.
The first, more optimistic view is that the initial success in lung cancer was a "proof of concept" that provided the safety and efficacy confidence necessary to pursue broader indications. Under this interpretation, the industry is entering a phase of expansion and maturity, moving toward a "pan-tumor" approach.
The second, more cynical interpretation—and the one favored by some market analysts—is that companies are increasingly skeptical of the long-term potential of PD-1/VEGF bispecifics in lung cancer. By pivoting to other solid tumors, companies may be attempting to "derisk" their large-dollar acquisitions. If a drug is failing to move the needle in the competitive lung cancer market, establishing efficacy in a niche, underserved indication like hepatocellular carcinoma could provide a necessary regulatory pathway to commercialization.
The Road Ahead: The Need for Global Clarity
As the industry looks toward the next three to five years, the focus must shift from the hype of "beating Keytruda" to the rigor of global, diversified clinical trials. The scientific community is currently awaiting the readout of several large-scale, international phase 3 trials. These studies will be the true test of whether the PD-1/VEGF class is a revolutionary advancement or simply a clever marketing consolidation of two older drug classes.
"From my personal perspective, we need to see more data," says Chowdhury. "We also need to see some of these global trials read out over the next few years to really see whether this is applicable on a global stage or not."
For investors and patients alike, the takeaway is clear: while the bispecific revolution is real, the specific battlefield of lung cancer may not be the final destination. The true winners of this pharma arms race will likely be the companies that can move beyond the "one-size-fits-all" mentality and identify the specific molecular landscapes where their bispecific assets can deliver the most meaningful patient outcomes.
Until that clarity arrives, the industry remains in a state of high-stakes transition—balancing the massive potential of dual-targeting therapies against the hard realities of clinical trial data, demographic variability, and the relentless pressure of a competitive global market.
About the Author
