PD-1/PD-L1 Checkpoint Inhibitor Clinical Trial Tracker

1,255+ active trials. Seven approved agents. Pembrolizumab has more FDA indications than any drug in history. The intelligence question has shifted from "does checkpoint inhibition work?" to "which combination, which biomarker subgroup, and which combination partner survives the biosimilar era?"

Track Checkpoint Trials Free →
1,255+
PD-1/PD-L1 Trials
7
Approved Agents
40+
Pembro Indications
2026
Data as of March
Pembrolizumab Expansion: Keytruda has received more FDA approvals than any drug in history — 40+ indications as of March 2026. Merck is running 1,600+ Keytruda trials globally. The question is no longer whether pembrolizumab works in a new tumor type, but which combination partner adds clinically meaningful benefit beyond pembrolizumab alone — and whether that combination can withstand biosimilar competition beginning in 2028.

Key PD-1/PD-L1 Phase 3 Trials: The Competitive Landscape

Trial Regimen Sponsor Setting Status
NCT04613219 Pembrolizumab + chemo vs SoC Merck MSS colorectal cancer Active Phase 3
NCT04940299 CheckMate-9DX Nivolumab + Ipilimumab vs SoC BMS Hepatocellular carcinoma (adjuvant) Active Phase 3
NCT03298893 Durvalumab + Olaparib vs SoC AstraZeneca NSCLC with DDR deficiency Active Phase 3
NCT04901715 Cemiplimab + chemotherapy vs chemo Regeneron Cervical cancer Active Phase 3
NCT04760444 Dostarlimab + chemo vs chemo GSK MMR-deficient endometrial cancer Active Phase 3

The PD-1/PD-L1 Landscape: Market Maturity and Differentiation Pressure

Checkpoint inhibition has progressed through three phases of clinical development: single-agent activity in biomarker-selected populations (2011-2016), combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy (2017-2022), and now the perioperative frontier — neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings where cure is the goal rather than disease control.

Seven agents are now FDA-approved:

The PD-L1 assay fragmentation creates ongoing treatment complexity. Four different IHC assays (22C3, 28-8, SP142, SP263) with different scoring systems (TPS vs CPS vs IC score) are used across approved pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab indications — making cross-trial comparison and treatment selection harder than it should be.

Where the Battles Are Being Fought Now

Checkpoint inhibition has saturated the metastatic setting across most solid tumors. The remaining active battlegrounds involve resistant tumor types, earlier treatment lines, and combination strategies:

Notable competitors outside the US: sintilimab (Innovent/Lilly), budigalimab (AbbVie), and tislelizumab (BeiGene/Novartis) are all PD-1 inhibitors with major Phase 3 datasets, primarily developed in China but expanding globally. These represent future biosimilar-pricing pressure even before formal biosimilar entry.

BD Intelligence: Merck's KEYNOTE franchise generates over $25B/year in pembrolizumab revenue. The biosimilar window opens 2028-2030 as patents expire. If you're building a PD-1/PD-L1 clinical program, you're racing against three forces simultaneously: (1) pembrolizumab's expanding indications eliminating whitespace, (2) the need for combination partners that add value beyond pembrolizumab alone — because adding pembro to your drug requires demonstrating incremental benefit over pembro monotherapy, and (3) the biosimilar era, when the economics of combination trials shift dramatically. The highest-value data in 2026-2028 will come from combinations that show survival benefit in populations where pembro alone underperforms: MSS-CRC, STK11-mutant NSCLC, and immunologically cold tumors.

Next-Generation Checkpoint Strategies: What's Working and What Isn't

PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies work by releasing the "brake" on T-cells exhausted by chronic antigen exposure. Multiple other brakes exist, and the field has invested heavily in targeting them:

The takeaway for pharma BD: the second-generation checkpoint combination market is crowded, the signals are mixed, and patient selection via tissue biomarkers is not solved. Programs with novel combination rationale — particularly IO + targeted therapy combinations (e.g., pembro + KRAS inhibitor, pembro + PARP inhibitor in HRD populations) — have more differentiated positioning than IO + IO doublets.

Related Pages

Track PD-1/PD-L1 Trials Daily — Free

Get alerts when Merck registers new pembrolizumab combination programs, BMS CheckMate trial status changes, AstraZeneca durvalumab perioperative data drop, or next-generation checkpoint programs reach Phase 3. Track by drug, sponsor, or tumor type.

Start Free Trial →

Frequently Asked Questions

How many PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor clinical trials are currently active?

As of March 2026, there are more than 1,255 trials on ClinicalTrials.gov involving PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors — the largest drug class in oncology trial activity. NCI sponsors 118 active trials, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center 63, AstraZeneca 51 (durvalumab programs), Merck 41 (pembrolizumab), Roche 26, BMS 15 (nivolumab), and Regeneron 13 (cemiplimab). Pembrolizumab alone has received more than 40 FDA approvals across tumor types, making it the most broadly approved drug in history.

What biomarkers predict response to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors?

The four established predictive biomarkers are: (1) PD-L1 expression by IHC (TPS or CPS, with different assays per drug creating algorithm complexity); (2) MSI-H/dMMR — the strongest pan-tumor predictor, approved across tumor types; (3) TMB (tumor mutational burden) — correlates with neoantigen load, approved for pembrolizumab in TMB-high solid tumors; and (4) specific oncogenic mutations where checkpoint activity combines with targeted therapy. Patients with MSI-H tumors respond dramatically to PD-1 inhibition regardless of tumor type.

Why has TIGIT failed in clinical trials despite early promise?

Multiple large Phase 3 TIGIT trials have failed — including Roche's tiragolumab + atezolizumab in SKYSCRAPER-01 for PD-L1-high NSCLC. The positive Phase 2 signals did not hold at Phase 3 scale. Current thinking is that TIGIT inhibition may require specific T-cell phenotypes not captured by PD-L1 or TMB screening, and that TIGIT-expressing regulatory T-cells may be the relevant target rather than effector T-cells. Most companies have substantially deprioritized TIGIT programs, though the mechanism is not considered permanently invalidated.