PROGNYX

Home/Landscapes/PD-1 x VEGF bispecific antibodies: the compe…

Landscape

PD-1 x VEGF bispecific antibodies: the competitive landscape.

Five programmes, one mechanism, five different molecular constructions. This page states what is on the registry and what regulators have done — and separates that from what it might mean.

A PD-1 x VEGF bispecific antibody puts checkpoint blockade and anti-angiogenesis into one molecule. The class went from a single Chinese asset to the most contested area in solid-tumour immuno-oncology in under three years, and every large pharmaceutical company that did not originate one has now licensed one.

This page is a permanent reference, not a news item. It lists the programmes, the trials that will decide them and the regulatory actions already taken, each linked to its primary record. It is maintained as those records change.

The programmes, at a glance

PD-1 x VEGF and PD-L1 x VEGF bispecifics in clinical development
AssetSponsorConstructionFurthest status
Ivonescimab (AK112 / SMT112)Akeso; Summit Therapeutics in North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and JapanPD-1 x VEGF, tetravalentBLA accepted, PDUFA goal date 14 November 2026 (Summit 8-K exhibit)
Pumitamig (BNT327 / BMS-986545)BioNTech with Bristol Myers SquibbPD-L1 x VEGF-A — a different first targetPhase 3 across NSCLC, SCLC and TNBC
PF-08634404 (SSGJ-707)Pfizer, licensed ex-China from 3SBio (Pfizer, 24 July 2025)PD-1 x VEGF, tetravalent, CLF2 platformPhase 3 in NSCLC, CRC, SCLC and endometrial cancer
MK-2010 (LM-299)Merck, licensed from LaNova Medicines (Merck, 20 December 2024)Anti-VEGF antibody with two C-terminal anti-PD-1 single domainsPhase 1/2, first data at AACR 2026
CR-001Crescent Biopharma (Nasdaq: CBIO)Tetravalent: anti-VEGF IgG with stabilised anti-PD-1 scFvsPhase 1/2 ASCEND, recruiting

Pumitamig is included because it competes for the same clinical position, but note the target difference: it binds PD-L1, not PD-1.

Ivonescimab — the one with a regulatory date

Ivonescimab is a tetravalent bispecific engineered by Akeso, licensed to Summit Therapeutics for North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Summit's filed 8-K exhibit describes cooperative binding, with higher affinity to PD-1 in the presence of VEGF, and a half-life of six to seven days after the first dose rising to roughly ten days at steady state.

The FDA accepted the Biologics License Application and set a PDUFA goal action date of 14 November 2026. The application covers ivonescimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated, locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC after progression on a third-generation EGFR TKI, and rests on the global Phase 3 HARMONi study. The same exhibit states that fourteen Phase 3 studies of ivonescimab are ongoing or complete, ten run by Akeso in China and four sponsored by Summit globally.

In the separate Chinese Phase 3 HARMONi-6, Akeso reported that ivonescimab plus chemotherapy improved overall survival against tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in first-line squamous NSCLC: median OS 27.9 months versus 23.7, hazard ratio 0.66 (95% CI 0.50–0.87), p = 0.0017, in 532 patients at a 27 February 2026 data cutoff, presented in an ASCO 2026 Plenary Session and published in The Lancet. The 24-month OS rate was reported as 64.7% versus 48.6%.

Analyst reading — interpretation, not established fact

Two facts sit in tension and both are true. HARMONi-6 is the first randomised evidence that this class can beat a PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy on overall survival, and it was run entirely in China against tislelizumab. The FDA decision due on 14 November 2026 is on a different question in a different population — EGFR-mutant non-squamous disease after TKI failure, from the global HARMONi trial. A reader tempted to treat the November date as a verdict on the class is reading across two trials, two geographies and two comparators.

PF-08634404 (SSGJ-707) — the broadest Phase 3 programme

Pfizer completed an ex-China licence from 3SBio in July 2025 for SSGJ-707, a PD-1 x VEGF bispecific built on 3SBio's CLF2 (common light chain, linear-Fabs-IgG) platform. It is now the widest Phase 3 footprint in the class: lung, colorectal, small cell and endometrial cancer, all registered inside twelve months.

The pivotal lung study is NCT07222566 (Symbiotic-Lung-01): Phase 3, double-blind, 1,410 patients, PF-08634404 plus chemotherapy against pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in first-line NSCLC, split into a squamous Part 1 and a non-squamous Part 2. In China, 3SBio's affiliate runs the parallel NCT06980272 against pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive first-line NSCLC, 420 patients.

The Phase 2 monotherapy data that justified this expansion come from NCT06361927, a first-line PD-L1-positive NSCLC study at 10 mg/kg every three weeks, reported at ASCO with a confirmed objective response rate of 67.6% and median progression-free survival of 12.4 months. Two caveats belong with that number and are stated rather than smoothed: it is single-arm Phase 2, and the registry record for that study carried a status of "unknown" at the review date, meaning the sponsor has not updated it within the registry's expected window.

Pumitamig (BNT327 / BMS-986545) — the PD-L1 variant

BioNTech's pumitamig, partnered with Bristol Myers Squibb, is the structural outlier: it targets PD-L1 x VEGF-A rather than PD-1 x VEGF. The Phase 3 programme spans three tumour types with different comparators — NCT07361510 (ROSETTA Lung-202, monotherapy against pembrolizumab in PD-L1 ≥ 50% first-line NSCLC, 750 patients), NCT06712355 in first-line small cell lung cancer against atezolizumab plus chemotherapy, 621 patients, and NCT07173751 in PD-L1-negative metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, 558 patients — alongside the NCT06712316 Phase 2/3 first-line NSCLC master protocol at 1,580 patients.

Analyst reading — interpretation, not established fact

The PD-1 versus PD-L1 choice is not a detail. A PD-L1-binding molecule concentrates where the ligand is expressed, which is a different distribution problem from a molecule that binds the receptor on T cells; and it changes which approved comparator a regulator will expect. ROSETTA Lung-202 choosing pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1 ≥ 50% is the most direct head-to-head design in the class, and also the one with the least room to hide a modest effect.

MK-2010 (LM-299) — the different geometry

Merck licensed LM-299 from LaNova Medicines for $588 million upfront, closing in December 2024, with up to $2.7 billion in milestones. Merck's own description of the construct is unusual for the class: an anti-VEGF antibody linked to two C-terminal single-domain anti-PD-1 antibodies, rather than a symmetric IgG-scFv fusion.

The asset is still early. The first-in-human study is NCT06650566, sponsored by LaNova Medicines, Phase 1/2, 108 patients planned, recruiting. First clinical data appeared at AACR 2026 as abstract CT057, reporting unconfirmed objective response rates of 55% at 20 mg/kg and 44% at 30 mg/kg in treatment-naive PD-L1-positive patients, with VEGF class adverse events in 51% and 49% of patients at those doses respectively.

CR-001 — the deliberate replica

Crescent Biopharma's CR-001 is a tetravalent construct — an anti-VEGF IgG carrying stabilised anti-PD-1 scFvs — designed explicitly to reproduce ivonescimab's geometry. The NCT07335497 ASCEND study is Phase 1/2, 290 patients planned, recruiting, with the first patient dosed in February 2026 and proof-of-concept data guided by the company to the first quarter of 2027.

Every registered late-stage trial in the class

PD-1 x VEGF and PD-L1 x VEGF bispecifics — registered trials, read from ClinicalTrials.gov on 1 September 2026
TrialSponsor of recordDesignPlanned enrolmentWhat it tests
NCT07222566PfizerPhase 3, double-blind1,410Symbiotic-Lung-01 — PF-08634404 + chemotherapy vs pembrolizumab + chemotherapy, 1L NSCLC (Part 1 squamous, Part 2 non-squamous)
NCT06980272Shenyang Sunshine (3SBio)Phase 3, quadruple-masked420SSGJ-707 vs pembrolizumab, 1L PD-L1-positive advanced NSCLC
NCT07222800PfizerPhase 3, double-blind800PF-08634404 + chemotherapy vs bevacizumab + chemotherapy, treatment-naive colorectal cancer
NCT07226999PfizerPhase 2/3, quadruple-masked550PF-08634404 + chemotherapy, extensive-stage small cell lung cancer
NCT07578649PfizerPhase 3, open-label600PF-08634404 + chemotherapy vs pembrolizumab + chemotherapy, mismatch-repair-proficient endometrial cancer
NCT06712316BioNTechPhase 2/3 master protocol1,580BNT327 + chemotherapy and other agents, 1L NSCLC
NCT07361510Bristol Myers SquibbPhase 3, double-blind750ROSETTA Lung-202 — pumitamig monotherapy vs pembrolizumab, 1L NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥ 50%
NCT06712355BioNTechPhase 3, quadruple-masked621BNT327 + etoposide/carboplatin vs atezolizumab + etoposide/carboplatin, 1L small cell lung cancer
NCT07173751BioNTechPhase 3, double-blind558BNT327 + chemotherapy vs placebo + chemotherapy, 1L PD-L1-negative metastatic TNBC
NCT06650566LaNova MedicinesPhase 1/2, open-label108LM-299 (MK-2010) monotherapy and combinations, advanced solid tumours
NCT07335497Crescent BiopharmaPhase 1/2, open-label290ASCEND — CR-001 dose escalation and expansion, advanced solid tumours

What actually decides this class

Analyst reading — interpretation, not established fact

Three questions, none of them answered yet by any published trial.

Does the benefit survive a Western population and a pembrolizumab comparator? The strongest randomised readouts so far are Chinese trials against Chinese or regional comparators. Symbiotic-Lung-01 and ROSETTA Lung-202 are the first large blinded tests against pembrolizumab in global populations.

Is the toxicity manageable at scale? Every molecule in this class carries VEGF-class adverse events — hypertension, bleeding, proteinuria — on top of checkpoint toxicity. The AACR CT057 rates give an order of magnitude for one asset; nothing comparable is public across the class, and this page will not extrapolate one programme's safety onto another.

Which construction wins, if construction matters at all? Tetravalent cooperative binding, a PD-L1 first target, and a VEGF backbone with single-domain PD-1 arms are three different bets on the same biology. If the readouts converge, the differentiator becomes manufacturing and price, not design.

Landscape last reviewed 1 September 2026. This page is a permanent reference on PD-1 x VEGF and PD-L1 x VEGF bispecific antibodies, maintained continuously as registries, regulatory actions and congress disclosures change; it is not a news briefing and does not claim to be exhaustive. Every fact links to the primary record behind it, and trial figures are read from the registry itself on the review date rather than from a release describing it. Enrolment figures are planned targets unless the record states otherwise. No claim of superiority or inferiority is made about any programme: the differences described are structural. Prognyx has no affiliation with any company named here and holds no position in their securities. Names and trademarks belong to their owners. Nothing here is medical or investment advice. Found an error? Write to hello@prognyx.com and it will be corrected.

Frequently asked

What is a PD-1 x VEGF bispecific antibody?

A single antibody engineered to bind two targets at once: PD-1, the checkpoint receptor that immunotherapies such as pembrolizumab block, and VEGF, the growth factor that drives tumour blood-vessel formation and that bevacizumab blocks. The intent is to deliver both mechanisms in one molecule, concentrating the checkpoint blockade where VEGF is abundant — that is, in the tumour microenvironment rather than in healthy tissue.

Which PD-1 x VEGF bispecific is furthest along?

Ivonescimab. The FDA accepted its Biologics License Application with a PDUFA goal action date of 14 November 2026, for ivonescimab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated, locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC after progression on a third-generation EGFR TKI. No other asset in the class has an accepted US filing as of 1 September 2026.

Is pumitamig a PD-1 x VEGF bispecific?

No, and the distinction matters. Pumitamig (BNT327 / BMS-986545) binds PD-L1 x VEGF-A. It competes for the same clinical positions and is usually discussed alongside the PD-1 assets, but it engages the ligand rather than the receptor, which changes both its tissue distribution and the comparator a regulator will expect.

Which company has the broadest PD-1 x VEGF Phase 3 programme?

Pfizer, with PF-08634404 (SSGJ-707), licensed ex-China from 3SBio. Registered Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 studies cover first-line NSCLC (NCT07222566, 1,410 patients), colorectal cancer (NCT07222800, 800), small cell lung cancer (NCT07226999, 550) and endometrial cancer (NCT07578649, 600), with a parallel Chinese Phase 3 run by 3SBio (NCT06980272, 420).

Has any PD-1 x VEGF bispecific beaten a PD-1 inhibitor on overall survival?

One randomised trial reports that result: HARMONi-6, run in China, in which ivonescimab plus chemotherapy showed median overall survival of 27.9 months versus 23.7 for tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in first-line squamous NSCLC, hazard ratio 0.66 (95% CI 0.50–0.87), p = 0.0017, in 532 patients. It has not yet been reproduced in a global population against pembrolizumab; the trials designed to test that are ongoing.

When will the next major readouts arrive?

The nearest fixed date is the FDA action on ivonescimab, 14 November 2026. Everything else is enrolment-dependent rather than calendar-fixed, so this page states the trials and their planned enrolment rather than predicting readout dates. Crescent Biopharma has guided to proof-of-concept data for CR-001 in the first quarter of 2027.

How is this page kept up to date?

It is a standing reference, rebuilt as the underlying records change: ClinicalTrials.gov entries are re-read rather than remembered, and each regulatory action is traced to the agency action page or the SEC exhibit that announced it. The review date at the foot of the page is the date of the last full sweep. See how we work.

This is the free version of what we do.

A landscape page states the record. A brief tells you what it does to your asset — which trial threatens your filing strategy, and what to do about it. Name one asset and we will show you.

Request a sample brief → The KRAS G12C landscape