Direct from Chat GPT 5.
###
Decades ago, there were two drugs that had pioneering and famously hard times with diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals that were used prior to radiopharma payload drugs (Bexxar, Zevalin). One may have gone out of business. Could you discuss that history.
###
The First Theranostic Failure: Bexxar and Zevalin
Long before theranostics became a fashionable term, before lutetium-177 and actinium-225 entered investor decks and ASCO plenaries, oncology had already lived through a quiet but consequential experiment in targeted radiopharmaceutical therapy. That experiment had two names: Bexxar and Zevalin.
Approved in the early 2000s for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, these agents were radioimmunotherapies: monoclonal antibodies directed at CD20, each carrying a radioactive payload designed to deliver cytotoxic radiation precisely to malignant B-cells. Scientifically, the concept was elegant and sound. Clinically, the results were often excellent. Commercially, they were disastrous.
The irony is that Bexxar and Zevalin were, in many respects, too early. They arrived at a moment when oncology payment systems, clinical workflows, and professional cultures were profoundly unprepared for what they represented: a therapy that was simultaneously a drug, a biologic, a radiopharmaceutical, and a nuclear-regulated product.
Bexxar, developed by Corixa and approved by the FDA in 2003, consisted of tositumomab paired with iodine-131–labeled tositumomab. Zevalin, approved a year earlier, paired ibritumomab tiuxetan with yttrium-90 and passed through several corporate hands, including Biogen Idec and later Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Both targeted the same disease biology. Both demonstrated high response rates and, in many patients, durable remissions that compared favorably with chemotherapy.
Yet adoption was sparse almost from the outset.
The core problem was not efficacy. It was payment.
At the time, CMS had no coherent framework for reimbursing therapies that sat at the intersection of oncology drugs and nuclear medicine. Payment for the antibody, payment for the radioactive component, payment for administration, and payment for the infrastructure required to safely handle radioactive materials were often misaligned or incomplete. Hospitals frequently found themselves in the paradoxical position of offering a highly effective cancer therapy that resulted in a financial loss per patient. Unsurprisingly, many institutions declined to offer it at all.
Operational complexity compounded the problem. Administering Bexxar or Zevalin required coordination across oncology, nuclear medicine, pharmacy, radiation safety, and inpatient services. Some regimens involved dosimetry steps, multiple visits, and post-treatment radiation precautions. At the same time, oncology practice was rapidly moving in the opposite direction—toward simpler infusional biologics, administered entirely within the oncology clinic, with predictable reimbursement and minimal logistical friction.
The cultural mismatch mattered. Lymphoma care was controlled by medical oncologists, not nuclear medicine physicians. Referrals to nuclear medicine introduced delay, complexity, and perceived loss of control. Radiation, still burdened by stigma for some patients and clinicians, raised additional psychological barriers. Even enthusiastic early adopters found that enthusiasm alone could not overcome institutional inertia when reimbursement and workflow were misaligned.
Timing, too, was unforgiving. Bexxar and Zevalin entered the market just as non-radioactive anti-CD20 therapies—most notably rituximab—were transforming lymphoma treatment. Rituximab was easy to administer, easy to bill, and fit seamlessly into existing oncology practice. Faced with a choice between a simple biologic that “worked well enough” and a complex radiopharmaceutical that required fighting the system, many clinicians chose the former.
The commercial consequences were stark. Bexxar never achieved meaningful market penetration. After Corixa was acquired, GlaxoSmithKline ultimately withdrew Bexxar from the market in 2014—not for lack of efficacy, but for lack of demand. Zevalin lingered longer, changing owners and indications, but steadily faded into marginal use. In effect, one pioneering company disappeared, and both products became cautionary tales rather than templates for success.
What makes this history especially important is how deeply it shaped institutional memory. Within CMS, among hospital administrators, and across oncology, Bexxar and Zevalin became synonymous with “brilliant science, impossible economics.” Their failure taught a hard lesson: innovation without reimbursement alignment is not innovation—it is attrition.
That lesson echoes loudly in today’s radiopharmaceutical landscape. Modern agents such as Pluvicto benefit not only from advances in chemistry and targeting, but from a payment environment consciously designed to avoid repeating the mistakes of the early 2000s. Transitional pass-through payments, explicit recognition of radiopharmaceutical costs, and deliberate efforts to simplify logistics all represent, in part, institutional overcorrection for the Bexxar and Zevalin experience.
In retrospect, these drugs did not fail because they were flawed. They failed because the system around them was not ready. They were theranostics before oncology had learned how to be theranostic; radiopharmaceuticals before CMS had learned how to pay for radiopharmaceuticals. Their legacy is not commercial success, but something arguably more important: the negative space that defined how today’s radioligand therapies are launched, reimbursed, and integrated.
In that sense, every successful modern radiopharmaceutical stands on their shoulders. Bexxar and Zevalin were the warning shot. The industry listened—eventually
