| Indication | Small cell lung cancer |
| Drug | MP0712 |
| Mechanism of Action | DLL3-targeting radio-DARPin |
| Company | Molecular Partners |
| Trial Phase | Phase I/IIa |
| Category | Clinical Trial Event |
| Sub Category | Trial Initiation / First Patient In (FPI) |
| Therapeutic Area | Oncology |
| Anticipated Initial Data | 2026 |
| Anticipated Comprehensive Data | 2027 |
| Target Protein | DLL3 (Delta-like ligand 3) |
| Therapeutic Payload | 212Pb |
| Diagnostic Imaging Agent | 203Pb-labelled MP0712 |
| Patient Population (DLL3 expression) | >85% of SCLC tumours |
| Number of Doses | Up to four |
| Number of Recruiting Sites | Five |
| Trial Region | US |
Molecular Partners and Orano Med Dose First Patient in MP0712 SCLC Trial
Molecular Partners and Orano Med have announced the dosing of the first patient in their Phase I/IIa multi-centre US trial for MP0712. This novel radio-DARPin drug candidate targets the tumour-associated DLL3 protein, found in over 85% of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) tumours, delivering a 212Pb therapeutic payload. The trial aims to assess the safety and early efficacy of MP0712, with initial data expected in 2026 and comprehensive safety and efficacy findings projected for 2027. The study employs a "matched-pair" approach, combining diagnostic imaging with therapeutic dosing.
- MP0712 is a radio-designed ankyrin repeat protein (DARPin) specifically engineered to target the delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) protein. This protein is highly expressed in over 85% of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) tumours, making it a promising target for therapeutic intervention. The drug carries a 212Pb therapeutic payload, designed to deliver targeted radiation to tumour cells expressing DLL3, thereby minimizing off-target effects and enhancing efficacy.
- The Phase I/IIa trial incorporates a unique "matched-pair" approach. This involves an initial imaging step using 203Pb-labelled MP0712 to predict tumour uptake, followed by therapeutic doses of 212Pb-labelled MP0712. Patients receive up to four doses according to assigned cohorts, with the first cohort already undergoing repeat dosing. This strategy aims to optimize treatment by ensuring the therapeutic agent reaches the intended target effectively.
- The collaboration between Molecular Partners and Orano Med leverages their respective expertise in DARPin technology and targeted alpha therapies. The successful dosing of the first patient marks a significant milestone, establishing the clinical safety profile of this novel therapy. Both companies anticipate reporting initial study data in 2026 and comprehensive findings in 2027, paving the way for further development of radio-DARPin candidates and expanding the potential of lead-212 in treating various cancer types.
Addressing SCLC's Unmet Needs with Novel Approaches
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains one of the most therapeutically recalcitrant malignancies, characterized by rapid progression, early metastasis, and an almost universal pattern of relapse following initial treatment. Despite high initial response rates to platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, durable disease control is rarely achieved, and the overall prognosis remains poor across disease stages.
Inevitable relapse and chemoresistance: Although platinum-containing doublets elicit responses in the majority of patients, relapse is inevitable and the tumor acquires profound resistance to subsequent therapies. Topotecan — with its limited efficacy — has persisted as the standard second-line option for approximately three decades, underscoring the absence of meaningful therapeutic advances in the relapsed setting.
Paucity of druggable genomic targets: The SCLC genomic landscape offers few readily actionable alterations. Intratumoral and intertumoral heterogeneity, compounded by transcriptional plasticity, present substantial obstacles to effective targeting. Acquisition of tumor biopsies — particularly at relapse — further complicates molecular profiling efforts.
Lack of validated predictive biomarkers: Biomarkers capable of selecting patients for novel targeted treatments or monitoring therapeutic responses have been largely absent. For PARP inhibitors specifically, current clinical results in SCLC are limited and predictive markers remain inconsistent across studies.
Attenuated efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB): Although SCLC carries a high tumor mutation burden, the clinical benefit from ICBs is markedly less pronounced than in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). SCLC exhibits a more immunodeficient phenotype, with low PD-L1 expression, downregulation of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, and dysregulation of regulatory chemokines that may facilitate immune escape. Most ICB studies in SCLC have been limited to early-phase trials and have failed to demonstrate superiority over conventional chemotherapy.
Narrow foothold for immunotherapy approvals: Among ICB regimens, only atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy demonstrated an overall survival benefit over chemotherapy alone in the phase III IMpower133 trial, leading to FDA approval as a first-line option for extensive-stage disease. The broader landscape of ICB combinations has not replicated this outcome at the phase III level.
Persistent challenges with combination strategies and drug resistance: Multiple clinical trials evaluating novel combinations have failed to demonstrate positive survival outcomes. Challenges including drug resistance, toxicity, and limited single-agent efficacy have driven ongoing investigation into combination regimens and novel drug formulations, though results to date remain largely incremental.
Designing the MP0712 Phase I/IIa Trial for SCLC
The SCLC clinical trial landscape spans a broad range of therapeutic modalities — from cytotoxic chemotherapy combinations to immune checkpoint inhibitors and bispecific T-cell engagers — with trial designs evolving from traditional randomized Phase III frameworks toward biomarker-enriched and real-world evidence studies. Endpoints have consistently centered on OS and PFS, with ORR, DOR, and safety profiles serving as key secondary and exploratory measures across both interventional and meta-analytic designs.
| Trial / Study | Design | Population | Key Endpoints | Notable Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeLLphi-301 (Phase 2, NCT05060016) — Tarlatamab | Phase 2; Asia subgroup analysis (n=43) | Previously treated, advanced SCLC | Primary: ORR (BICR, RECIST v1.1); Secondary: DOR, PFS, OS, safety | ORR 46.3%; median DOR 7.2 mo; median PFS 5.4 mo; median OS 19.0 mo; CRS in 48.8% (all Grade 1–2); no treatment-related discontinuations |
| Tarlatamab Real-World Comparison | Propensity score–weighted comparison; DeLLphi-301 (n=97) vs. Flatiron Health database (n=184) | Third-line+ SCLC | OS, PFS, TTD, TTNTD, ORR | HR for OS: 0.45 (95% CI 0.30–0.68); HR for PFS: 0.61; OR for ORR: 2.80 (95% CI 1.44–5.83) |
| Tislelizumab Meta-Analysis (2025) | Systematic review and meta-analysis of 4 Phase III RCTs (n=1,837) | NSCLC and SCLC | Primary: OS, PFS | HR for OS: 0.72 (95% CI 0.63–0.81); HR for PFS: 0.61 (95% CI 0.54–0.68); consistent benefit across mono and combination therapy |
| Nivolumab + PE vs. PE (Randomized Phase II) | 1:1 randomized Phase II; n=160 enrolled, n=144 treated | Untreated ES-SCLC; ECOG PS 0–1 | Primary: PFS (one-sided α=0.10); Secondary: OS, ORR, safety | Median PFS 5.5 vs. 4.9 mo (HR 0.78; p=0.083); median OS 11.2 vs. 8.1 mo (HR 0.71; p=0.059) |
| KEYNOTE-604 — Pembrolizumab + EP vs. placebo + EP | Randomized Phase III | ES-SCLC | PFS, OS, ORR | HR for PFS: 0.75 (p=0.0023); HR for OS: 0.80 (p=0.0164, did not meet threshold); 24-mo OS 22.5% vs. 11.2%; Grade 3–4 AEs 76.7% vs. 74.9% |
| Real-World Korean Cohort (2018–2021) | Retrospective cohort; n=177 | ES-SCLC; median age 66 yrs | OS, PFS, TTNT, ORR (RECIST v1.1) | ORR 74.5%; median OS 12.4 mo; median PFS 5.3 mo; ORR 63.2% in brain metastasis subgroup |
| ES-SCLC — Etoposide-Platinum-Atezolizumab (Catholic University of Korea) | Multi-center retrospective; n=41 | ES-SCLC | OS, PFS, AEs | 6-mo survival 68.6%; PR 63.4%; Grade III–IV AEs in 63.4% during induction; LDH, CRP, FVC significant for OS |
| Anlotinib Meta-Analysis (2023) | Meta-analysis; 13 studies, n=779 | Pre-treated SCLC | OS, PFS, ORR, DCR, AEs | ORR 0.21; DCR 0.76; median PFS 3.46 mo; median OS 6.86 mo; PFS significantly longer vs. control (SMD=0.76; p=0.02) |
| Network Meta-Analysis — ICI + Chemotherapy (2024) | Network meta-analysis | ES-SCLC | OS, PFS, ORR, DOR, AEs | Serplulimab + chemo superior to chemo alone (MD=−4.49; 95% CI −7.97 to −1.03); no significant PFS differences across regimens |
| Amrubicin Post-Chemoimmunotherapy (2022) | Retrospective; n=30 | Recurrent SCLC post-ICI | PFS, OS, AEs | Median PFS 3.8 mo; median OS 10 mo; Grade ≥3 neutropenia 73%; no significant difference between sensitive and refractory subgroups |
| Bevacizumab Phase III (ED-SCLC, 2017) | Randomized Phase III; n=204 | Treatment-naive ED-SCLC | Primary: OS; Secondary: PFS, toxicity | Median OS 8.9 vs. 9.8 mo (HR 0.78; p=0.113); PFS 5.7 vs. 6.7 mo (p=0.030); OS benefit in maintenance subgroup (HR 0.60; p=0.011) |
| Immunotherapy Meta-Analysis (2021) | Systematic review and meta-analysis; 38 trials, n=20,173 | Lung cancer including SCLC | OS, PFS, ORR, TRAEs | ICI vs. chemo HR for OS: 0.82 (95% CI 0.75–0.90); OS/PFS benefit only in first-line SCLC; ICI + SOC recommended as optimal first-line |
| ICE-V Trial (2005) | Randomized trial; n=402 | SCLC, good PS | OS, quality of life | Median OS 15.6 vs. 11.6 mo (HR 0.74; p=0.0049); 2-yr survival 20% vs. 11%; increased septicemia in ICE-V arm (15% vs. 7%) |
Frequently Asked Questions
References
- [1] Barba A, Martínez-Recio S et al.. Small cell lung cancer: a therapeutic update in the era of immunotherapy and beyond-a narrative review. Chinese clinical oncology. 2026 Apr. 42145018
- [2] Jin S, Cao S et al.. Clinical impact of pretreatment prognostic nutritional index (PNI) in small cell lung cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. The clinical respiratory journal. 2018 Sep. 30074685
- [3] Wang C, Li J et al.. The landscape of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced lung cancer. BMC cancer. 2021 Aug 28. 34454455
- [4] Zeng Q, Chu X et al.. The Optimal Radiotherapy Strategy for Patients With Small Cell Lung Cancer and Brain Metastasis: A Retrospective Analysis. CNS neuroscience & therapeutics. 2024 Nov. 39500635
- [5] Martins RG, Reynolds CH et al.. Beyond "second-line" in non-small cell lung cancer: therapy and supportive care. American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting. 2015. 25993204
- [6] Aktan M, Koc M et al.. Prognostic value of pre-treatment (18)F-FDG-PET uptake in small-cell lung cancer. Annals of nuclear medicine. 2017 Jul. 28516335
- [7] Ul Bassar W, Ogedegbe OJ et al.. Efficacy of Tislelizumab in Lung Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Cureus. 2025 Mar. 40230743
- [8] Castellanos EH, Horn L. Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer. Cancer treatment and research. 2016. 27535396
- [9] Chen YQ, Tan JX et al.. Exploring YAP1-related TIME in SCLC: implications for survival and treatment response to immuno-chemotherapy. Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.). 2025. 40051494
- [10] Nisman B, Nechushtan H et al.. New ARCHITECT plasma pro-gastrin-releasing peptide assay for diagnosing and monitoring small-cell lung cancer. British journal of cancer. 2016 Feb 16. 26812573
- [11] Zhang S, Liu J et al.. [Highlights of PAPR Inhibitors in Small Cell Lung Cancer]. Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer. 2020 Sep 20. 32752582
- [12] Wang L, Sun H et al.. Evaluating the efficacy and safety of Anlotinib in conjunction with stereotactic radiosurgery for small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases. Oncology research. 2025. 40191725
- [13] Jiang Y, Xie WJ et al.. The Hippo Signaling Core Components YAP and TAZ as New Prognostic Factors in Lung Cancer. Frontiers in surgery. 2022. 35388363
- [14] Tian Y, Zhai X et al.. Potential immune escape mechanisms underlying the distinct clinical outcome of immune checkpoint blockades in small cell lung cancer. Journal of hematology & oncology. 2019 Jun 28. 31253167
- [15] Ahn MJ, Cho BC et al.. Asian Subgroup Analysis of Patients in the Phase 2 DeLLphi-301 Study of Tarlatamab for Previously Treated Small Cell Lung Cancer. Oncology and therapy. 2025 Dec. 40908346
- [16] Murayama T, Mahadevan NR et al.. Targeting TREX1 Induces Innate Immune Response in Drug-Resistant Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Cancer research communications. 2024 Sep 1. 39177280
- [17] O'Brien ME, Konopa K et al.. Randomised phase II study of amrubicin as single agent or in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin etoposide as first-line treatment in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer - EORTC 08062. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2011 Oct. 21684151
- [18] Pinto JA, Raez LE et al.. Current knowledge of Ipilimumab and its use in treating non-small cell lung cancer. Expert opinion on biological therapy. 2019 Jun. 31002006
- [19] Oliver E, Killen J et al.. Treatment pathways, resource use and costs in the management of small cell lung cancer. Thorax. 2001 Oct. 11562518
- [20] Schuette W, Nagel S et al.. Phase II trial of gemcitabine/irinotecan in refractory or relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Clinical lung cancer. 2005 Sep. 16179101


















