Strategic design framework in RDC development
With clinical validation now established, the focus of RDC development is shifting from proof-of-concept to architecture optimization. Successful platforms do not arise from isolated advances in target biology or radionuclide physics alone, but from a coordinated integration of biological design, radionuclide properties, chemical architecture, and clinical translation.
Figure 1. Strategic Design Framework for Successful RDC Development.
Target Selection Principles in RDC development
Successful RDC targets share several defining biological features:
· High and relatively homogeneous surface expression
· Limited normal tissue distribution
· Accessibility to circulating ligands
· Favorable internalization or membrane retention
· Compatibility with imaging-based patient selection
Within this framework, clinically validated RDC targets are clustered into three categories
· Small-molecule targeting ligands
Small-molecule RDCs have emerged as the commercially dominant architecture due to their rapid tumor penetration, favorable clearance, strong internalization kinetics, and scalable manufacturing profile.
PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen): This is the dominant target in today’s global RDC landscape. It is highly and homogenously expressed in metastatic prostate cancer and exhibits rapid internalization, making it ideally suited for both imaging and therapeutic radionuclides. Clinically, PSMA has the strongest validation of any RDC target, driving the fastest commercial adoption and the largest pipeline expansion to date. Leading examples include Pluvicto, currently the flagship therapeutic RDC, and PSMA-PET imaging agents such as Illuccix and Pylarify. Together, these agents have established PSMA as the most commercially successful target in RDC history.
FAP (fibroblast activation protein): This target has rapidly emerged as one of the fastest-growing targets in RDC development, largely because it is highly expressed in cancer-associated fibroblasts across a broad range of solid tumors. This stromal localization produces excellent tumor-to-background contrast and supports a seamless diagnostic-to-therapeutic workflow, making FAP an attractive pan-tumor platform. Clinically, 68Ga-FAPI imaging agents are already widely used in oncology centers, while 177Lu-FAPI and 225Ac-FAPI therapies are progressing through phase I/II trials. Because of its broad applicability and strong biological rationale, FAP is widely viewed as the next major RDC platform following the success of PSMA.
Besides these leading targets, bone-targeted ligands (bisphosphonates, DOTMP analogs) and GRPR (Gastrin-releasing peptide receptor) have also been explored in RDC development, though primarily in more specialized or early-stage applications.
· Peptide targeting ligands
Peptide vectors occupy a middle ground between small molecules and antibodies, offering high affinity, excellent PK control, and predictable biodistribution.
SSTR2 (Somatostatin receptor 2): This is the most established peptide target in RDC development and the gold standard for treating neuroendocrine tumors. Its long clinical history with somatostatin analogs and predictable expression profile make it highly suitable for theranostics, enabling a smooth transition from PET imaging (68Ga-labeled tracers) to therapeutic applications such as Lutathera. As the first successful peptide-based therapeutic RDC, Lutathera has positioned SSTR2 as a foundational model for peptide-targeted radiopharmaceutical platforms.
CXCR4 (C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4): This is an important peptide target in RDC development for hematologic malignancies, with strong relevance in AML, multiple myeloma, and lymphoma. It enables both diagnostic and therapeutic applications through agents such as 68Ga-pentixafor for PET imaging and 177Lu-pentixather for targeted therapy, which remain the leading programs advancing this target in clinical development.
Other less prominent peptide targets, including additional SSTR subtypes (SSTR1/3/5), GLP-1R (Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor), and integrin-binding peptides (e.g., αvβ3/ αvβ6), have been explored mostly in early-stage imaging or niche therapeutic applications but have not yet achieved broad clinical adoption.
· Antibody-based targeting ligands
Antibody-based RDCs prioritize maximal specificity and tumor retention, though slower pharmacokinetics necessitate careful radionuclide selection, increasingly favoring α-emitters.
DLL3 (delta-like ligand 3): This has emerged as one of the most important antibody targets in RDC development, driven primarily by its high and selective expression in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and minimal presence in healthy tissues. This unique expression pattern provides an excellent therapeutic window and has made DLL3 a major focus for α-emitter RDC programs. Leading clinical efforts, including 177Lu-DLL3 and 225Ac-DLL3 therapies, underscore the strategic significance of this target.
CD20: This is a historically important antibody target in the evolution of radiopharmaceutical therapy, forming the basis of the first-generation radioimmunotherapy agents Zevalin and Bexxar. Although CD-20 directed RDC development is limited today due to shifts in therapeutic strategy and competition from newer modalities, its role remains significant in demonstrating early clinical proof-of-concept for targeted radionuclide delivery and paving the way for modern RDC platforms.
HER2 (Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2): This is a well-established oncology target that has gained increasing relevance in radiopharmaceutical development. 89Zr-trastuzumab is widely used in immune-PET to assess HER2 expression in breast and gastric cancers, providing a strong diagnostic foundation. Building on this, several therapeutic candidates, such as 177Lu-HER2 and 225Ac-HER2 conjugates, are progressing through early clinical evaluation. While still emerging as a therapeutic RDC target, HER2’s robust biological validation and broad patient population make it an attractive direction for antibody-based RDCs.
CD46: This has emerged as a promising target for α-emitter RDCs, particularly in prostate cancer where it offers broader applicability than PSMA. 225Ac-CD46 has highlighted its therapeutic potential, positioning CD46 as an important antibody target in the evolving α-RDC landscape.
Other antibody targets, such as GPA33/CEACAM5, mesothelin, and EGFR family variants, have been explored primarily in early-stage or niche RDC programs, with most development focused on α-emitting constructs for solid tumors.
· Other emerging and experimental targets
A range of emerging targets, including nucleic acid-based RDCs (aptamer, oligonucleotide) and nanoparticle-based RDCs (liposomes, gold nanoparticles), are expanding the future landscape of RDC development. While most remain in early exploratory stages, these targets offer new avenues for cancer-type-agnostic imaging, improved tumor penetration, and next-generation of radionuclide therapies.
Figure 2. Representative Ligand classes and Their Design Characteristics in RDC Development.
Radionuclide selection principles in RDC development
Radionuclide selection in RDC development extends far beyond decay classification. Clinical experience has demonstrated that optimal isotope choice arises from the alignment of physical half-life, radiation range, linear energy transfer (LET), vector pharmacokinetics, and practical manufacturing constraints. Successful RDC platforms therefore reflect not only nuclear physics, but a systems-level integration of biology, chemistry and clinical workflow.
· Pharmacokinetic alignment
The pharmacokinetic profile of a targeting vector is an important consideration in radionuclide selection. Differences in tumor uptake, systemic clearance, and tumor retention influence which radionuclides are most suitable for each targeting platform.
Small-molecule vectors typically exhibit rapid tumor penetration and fast systemic clearance. Short-lived radionuclides such as 68Ga and 18F are well suited for diagnostic imaging, while 177Lu can be used for therapeutic application when sufficient tumor retention is achieved.
Peptide-based vectors demonstrate predictable biodistribution and moderate circulation times, making them well suited to radionuclides such as 68Ga and 64Cu for imaging and 177Lu for therapeutic applications.
Antibody-based vectors typically exhibit prolonged circulation and slow tumor penetration, and require longer-lived isotopes for imaging such as 89Zr and increasingly favor longer-lived therapeutics emitters such as 225Ac to ensure sustained intratumoral dose delivery.
This pharmacokinetics alignment between targeting vectors and radionuclides is an important principle in RDC design.
Figure 3. Pharmacokinetic Alignment between Targeting Vectors and Radionuclides.
· Radiation range and tumor architecture
Radiation path length must be considered in the context of tumor size, vascularization, and antigen heterogeneity.
β-Emitters provide crossfire effects, allowing radiation to extend beyond directly bound cells. This is advantageous in medium-to-large lesions or when antigen expression is moderately heterogeneous.
α-Emitters, with ultra-short path lengths (50-100 µm) and high linear energy transfer, deliver highly localized cytotoxicity. Their potency is particularly valuable in micrometastatic disease, small-volume lesions, and treatment-resistant tumor populations where highly localized radiation delivery is desirable.
The increasing interest in α-emitters reflects the need for greater biological precision rather than simply higher energy deposition.
Figure 4. Key Characteristics of β- and α-Emitters in RDC Development.
· Linear energy transfer and mechanism of cell killing
Different radiation types induce distinct biological effects.
β-Particles primarily cause indirect DNA damage through free radical formation.
α-Particles primarily deliver high-LET radiation that causes direct, irreparable DNA double-strand breaks regardless of hypoxia or cell cycle phase.
This distinction has significant implications for treating hypoxia or therapy-resistant tumor populations. As oncology shifts toward targeting refractory disease settings, high-LET radionuclides are gaining strategic importance.
· Chelation chemistry and in vivo stability
Radionuclide selection is also constrained by coordination chemistry and in vivo stability requirements.
Macrocyclic chelators such as DOTA have become dominant in clinically validated RDCs due to strong thermodynamic stability, favorable kinetic inertness, regulatory familiarity, and broad compatibility with therapeutic β-emitters such as 177Lu.
For α-emitters, additional challenges arise, including daughter isotope recoil and radiolysis effects. These constraints necessitate careful chelator design and contribute to the slower but steadily advancing clinical adoption of targeted alpha therapy.
· Manufacturing scalability and regulatory feasibility
Beyond biological and physical considerations, radionuclide selection is influenced by practical realities, including production method, global supply availability, transport logistics and regulatory precedent.
The widespread clinical adoption of 177Lu reflects not only favorable physics but also established manufacturing infrastructure and global supply chain maturity. In contrast, 225Ac remains supply-constrained, limiting the speed of commercial expansion despite strong therapeutic promise.
Chelator selection principles in RDC development
Chelator selection is a critical determinant of RDC performance because it directly influences radiolabeling efficiency, in vivo stability, pharmacokinetics, and ultimately patient safety. An ideal chelator must not only bind the radionuclide with high affinity during preparation but also retain it throughout the circulation, minimizing off-target radiation caused by metal dissociation.
· Coordination chemistry compatibility
Chelator selection begins with coordination chemistry. Different radionuclides possess distinct ionic radii, oxidation states, and coordination preferences, requiring chelators appropriate matched donor atoms and cavity sizes. As a result, no universal chelator exists for all radionuclides. Instead, clinically successful RDCs typically employ isotope-specific chelation strategies optimized for both labeling efficiency and long-term stability.
Figure 5. Representative Radionuclide-Chelator Pairing Strategies in RDC Development.
· In-vivo stability
Radiometal release can lead to undesired accumulation in normal tissues such as bone, liver, or kidneys, reducing therapeutic efficacy while increasing toxicity. Consequently, clinical validated RDCs favor chelators that combine high thermodynamic stability with strong kinetic inertness. Macrocyclic chelators, particularly DOTA, have become the benchmark owing to their excellent in vivo stability and broad compatibility with therapeutics radionuclides such as 177Lu and diagnostic isotopes including 68Ga.
· Labeling conditions and manufacturability
Practical considerations are equally important. Chelators should enable efficient radiolabeling under conditions compatible with the targeting vector while supporting reproducible manufacturing and quality control. The widespread adoption of DOTA reflects not only its coordination chemistry but also decades of accumulated clinical experience, established production processes, and regulatory familiarity.
Overall, chelator selection represents a balance between coordination chemistry, biological stability and manufacturing practicality. The continued development of isotope-specific chelators is expected to further expand the clinical potential of both established β-emitting RDCs and emerging targeted α-therapy platforms.
Linker engineering principles in RDC development
Linker engineering in RDCs differs fundamentally from that in antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Rather than enabling intracellular payload release, RDC linkers primarily serve as structural elements that optimize pharmacokinetics, molecular stability, and overall biodistribution. Their design therefore plays a critical role in determining the therapeutic index of the final construct.
Figure 6. Impact of Linker Engineering on RDC Properties and Performance.
Pharmacokinetic modulation
Linkers influence molecular hydrophilicity, flexibility, and spatial separation between the targeting ligand and the radiometal complex. Appropriate linker design can improve tumor uptake while reducing nonspecific accumulation in organs such as the kidneys and liver, thereby enhancing both imaging contrast and therapeutic safety.
· Structural compatibility
The linker must preserve the binding affinity and biological function of the targeting ligand while minimizing steric interference with receptor recognition. Spacer length, rigidity, and molecular composition should therefore be optimized as part of the overall molecular architecture rather than considered independently.
· Chemical robustness and manufacturability
Because RDCs rely on stable radionuclide retention throughout circulation, linkers are generally designed to remain chemically intact under physiological conditions. In addition to in vivo stability, practical considerations, including synthetic accessibility, scalable manufacturing, and compatibility with radiolabeling workflows, are increasingly important during clinical translation.
Overall, linker engineering extends beyond simply connecting molecular components. It provides a versatile platform for fine-tuning RDC pharmacokinetics and biodistribution, making it an essential contributor to the safety, efficacy, and developability of next-generation radiopharmaceuticals.
Conclusion
Successful RDC platforms are defined not only by isolated innovations, but by disciplined architectural integration. Target biology, vector pharmacokinetics, radionuclide physics, chelation stability, linker engineering, and manufacturing feasibility must function as a coordinated system.
At PrecisePEG, we focus on enabling this architectural precision through advanced chelator-ready intermediates, linker engineering strategies, and conjugation chemistry solutions designed to support stability and scalability in RDC development.
Reference
1. Roesch, F.; Martin, M. Radiometal-theranostics: the first 20 years. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 2023, 332, 1557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-022-08624-3
2. Yan, Y.; Liu, X.; Jiang, Y.; Sun, L. Targeted radionuclide-drug conjugates: Current status and perspectives. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2026, 318, 119190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2026.119190
3. Xijing, L.; Cheng, B. Recent advances in radionuclide drug conjugates (RDCs) for cancer theranostics: From targeted design to clinical translation. Bioorg. Chem. 2025, 167, 109240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioorg.2025.109240
4. Stoddard, A.; Furey, K.; Dehlavi, G.; Mane, M. M.; Sebastiano, J.; Zeglis, B. M. Linker Chemistry in Radiopharmaceutical Design. Bioconjugate Chem. 2026, 37, 630–657. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.6c00056