Every May, the world's largest cancer-research meeting publishes thousands of studies in a single 24-hour window. For a business-development, competitive-intelligence, or investment team, the challenge is not access — it is structure. Which mechanisms are gaining momentum? Which tumor types are crowding? Where is the field rotating away from? We ran the entire ASCO 2026 program — all 7,222 studies — through the Knitify Oncology Radar and compared it, study for study, to 2025 and 2024. This is what the data says.
The headline: a modality rotation is underway
If you read only one chart from ASCO 2026, read this one. We classified every study by the drug class(es) it mentions and counted distinct studies per class across three years. The checkpoint-inhibitor era has matured — anti–PD-1/PD-L1 attention is essentially flat and fractionally down (904 → 893 → 882 studies). The growth is concentrated in two engineered-antibody modalities: antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), up 27% over two years, and bispecific antibodies / T-cell engagers, up a remarkable 87%. Meanwhile three classes that defined the last decade — CDK4/6 inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, and KRAS inhibitors — are all declining in study volume.
This is the single most important commercial signal in the meeting. The oncology R&D dollar is rotating out of small-molecule targeted therapy and first-generation immuno-oncology, and into targeted biologics that deliver a cytotoxic payload (ADCs) or redirect T-cells (bispecifics). Every downstream conclusion in this digest is a facet of that rotation.
Drug-level momentum: the gainers and the fading
Underneath the class trend, individual molecules tell the story in sharper relief. The table below ranks the most informative movers — both the assets accelerating and the legacy agents losing share of voice.
| Drug (class) | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2-yr trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pembrolizumab (anti–PD-1) | 374 | 358 | 386 | ▲ steady backbone |
| durvalumab (anti–PD-L1) | 89 | 84 | 112 | ▲ +26% (perioperative) |
| trastuzumab deruxtecan (ADC) | 53 | 68 | 85 | ▲ +60% |
| enfortumab vedotin (ADC) | 37 | 31 | 48 | ▲ +30% |
| tarlatamab (DLL3 bispecific) | 2 | 12 | 37 | ▲ ×18 |
| venetoclax (BCL-2) | 27 | 48 | 58 | ▲ ×2 |
| cetuximab (anti–EGFR) | 36 | 49 | 60 | ▲ +67% (BRAF combos) |
| daratumumab (anti–CD38) | 15 | 23 | 32 | ▲ ×2 |
| cisplatin (chemo) | 245 | 208 | 176 | ▼ −28% |
| palbociclib (CDK4/6) | 44 | 45 | 27 | ▼ −39% |
Three patterns stand out. First, the ADC and bispecific gainers are real and large: trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) grew 60% in two years to 85 studies, enfortumab vedotin rebounded to 48, and tarlatamab — a DLL3 bispecific that barely existed in the 2024 program (2 studies) — exploded to 37, an eighteen-fold rise. Second, perioperative immunotherapy is a growth pocket: durvalumab's 26% jump reflects the migration of checkpoint blockade into earlier, curative-intent settings. Third, the chemotherapy backbone and the mature targeted classes are eroding: cisplatin fell 28%, and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib fell 39% as that class consolidates around newer agents and combinations.
Tumor-type crowding: where the studies pile up
On the indication axis, the three biggest battlefields keep growing. Breast (498 studies), colorectal (311), and lung (296) each added 40-plus studies year over year. But the fastest relative growth is in heme and harder-to-treat solid tumors: acute myeloid leukemia (+23), multiple myeloma (+24), gastric (+24), cervical (+20), and an umbrella "hematologic malignancies" category that more than doubled.
| Indication | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | Δ 25→26 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breast cancer | 396 | 455 | 498 | +43 |
| Colorectal cancer | 246 | 266 | 311 | +45 |
| Lung cancer | 208 | 249 | 296 | +47 |
| Prostate cancer | 156 | 211 | 202 | −9 |
| Gastric cancer | 83 | 104 | 128 | +24 |
| Multiple myeloma | 84 | 92 | 116 | +24 |
| Cervical cancer | 77 | 91 | 111 | +20 |
| Acute myeloid leukemia | 53 | 49 | 72 | +23 |
| Hematologic malignancies | 17 | 24 | 61 | +37 |
For a BD team, crowding cuts both ways. A 498-study breast-cancer field is where the science is richest and the competitive intensity is highest — differentiation is hard and expensive. The faster-growing, less-saturated indications (gastric, cervical, AML) are where a well-positioned asset can still own a mechanism before the field floods in.
What this means for the three desks that pay attention to ASCO
Business development: the in-licensing thesis for 2026–2028 is ADCs and bispecifics, full stop. The volume, the late-breaking slots, and the plenary selections all point the same way. If your pipeline is over-indexed on first-generation checkpoint blockade or a mature targeted class, the radar is telling you where the competition is reallocating.
R&D and corporate strategy: the decline of CDK4/6, PARP, and KRAS attention is not a verdict on the biology — it is a signal that those fields have consolidated around winners and the white space has narrowed. New entrants there face an uphill differentiation battle; new entrants in ADC payload chemistry or next-generation T-cell engagers are entering an expanding market.
Investors: study momentum is a leading indicator of where clinical capital — and therefore future readouts, approvals, and deals — will concentrate. The eighteen-fold rise of a single DLL3 bispecific is exactly the kind of signal that precedes a franchise.
Explore the underlying data
Every number above is live and pivotable on the Knitify ASCO Radar — analyze the 7,222 studies in the ASCO 2026 program by drug, indication, sponsor, or trial-in-progress status, and compare year over year against 2025 and 2024. The radar links to each study on the official ASCO program; it does not reproduce copyrighted text.
Methodology & scope: figures in this article are structured signals the Knitify ASCO Radar derives from the publicly released ASCO 2026 scientific program (7,222 studies presented; 6,511 in 2025; 5,885 in 2024) — counting how many studies reference a given drug, indication, or modality class. They quantify research attention and momentum, not clinical efficacy or market share. Named trial results are quoted from public company press releases, the ASCO press program, and peer-reviewed journals (cited below). The radar does not reproduce any copyrighted text — it links to each study on the official ASCO program. This is editorial commentary on public data — not investment, legal, regulatory, or medical advice.