Strategic Entry Points for New Cell Therapy Acquirers
A Framework for Latecomers
This is the final article in a ten-part series on cell therapy partnership strategy.
The cell therapy field appears mature. Six autologous CAR-T products are approved in the US, with additional approvals in EU and other major markets. Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, and Novartis have established positions. AstraZeneca has entered through acquisition. The easy entry points seem occupied.
Yet significant pharma companies remain on the sidelines. For these potential entrants, the question is not whether to engage with cell therapy, but how to enter a field where first-movers have already established positions.
The Latecomer's Advantage
Late entry is often framed as disadvantage. But latecomers also benefit from clarity that first-movers lacked.
Technology de-risking. First-generation CAR-T development required bets on unproven technology. Today, autologous CAR-T efficacy is established fact.
Manufacturing learning. First-movers built manufacturing through trial and error. Best practices are now documented.
Competitive intelligence. CD19 and BCMA landscapes are visible. New entrants can identify differentiation opportunities.
Partnership availability. Chinese biotech companies have built manufacturing capabilities and clinical data packages specifically for out-licensing.
"Latecomers can adopt optimized processes, identify differentiation opportunities, and access partnership options that didn't exist for pioneers."
Entry Strategy 1: Differentiated Target
While CD19 and BCMA are crowded, significant opportunities remain:
Autoimmune disease targets. CD19 CAR-T is showing dramatic efficacy in lupus, myositis, and other autoimmune conditions. The field is nascent.
Next-line hematology targets. T-cell malignancies, AML, and other hematologic cancers remain underserved.
Solid tumor targets. Companies willing to accept higher development risk can pursue GD2, mesothelin, GPC3, or other solid tumor targets.
Dual-targeting. Next-generation CARs targeting two antigens simultaneously address resistance mechanisms.
Entry Strategy 2: Manufacturing Differentiation
Companies that acquire or build differentiated manufacturing can compete effectively:
Rapid manufacturing. Platforms that reduce production from weeks to days create access advantages.
Point-of-care manufacturing. Decentralized manufacturing at treatment centers represents the field's next frontier.
Cost-optimized manufacturing. Manufacturing innovation focused on cost reduction could enable indications where current economics don't work.
Entry Strategy 3: Geographic Positioning
Japan. PMDA-approved CAR-T is limited. Companies with Japan commercial presence can partner for regional rights.
Emerging markets. Cost-reduced manufacturing platforms may enable market creation in regions where current products are unaffordable.
Regional manufacturing hubs. Cell therapy's logistics favor regional production.
Entry Strategy 4: Modality Bet
Rather than competing directly with autologous CAR-T leaders:
CAR-NK leadership. NK cell therapy offers differentiated safety and manufacturing profiles.
In vivo platform. If in vivo CAR delivery works, it obsoletes much current manufacturing infrastructure.
Allogeneic play. Current valuations reflect allogeneic skepticism. Contrarian positions could generate substantial returns if persistence problems are solved.
Entry Strategy 5: Lifecycle Management
Franchise defense. Companies with hematology franchises can use cell therapy to maintain customer relationships as older products lose exclusivity.
Combination positioning. Companies with assets that complement cell therapy can enter through combination development.
Supportive care adjacency. Cell therapy requires substantial supportive care—CRS management, infection prophylaxis. Companies with supportive care portfolios can capture adjacencies.
Build, Buy, or Partner Decision
Build makes sense when you have relevant existing capabilities and long timelines.
Buy makes sense when you need capability quickly and can afford acquisition premiums.
Partner makes sense when you want to test fit before full commitment or prefer shared risk.
Most successful entrants combine approaches: partnering for near-term products while building internal capabilities for long-term independence.
The Window Remains Open
Cell therapy is often described as a field where entry opportunity has passed. The evidence suggests otherwise. New targets, manufacturing innovations, geographic opportunities, and modality evolution continue to create entry points.
Cell therapy is not a closed market. It's an evolving field where thoughtful late entry can still generate substantial value.
Previous: Deal Architectures from Landmark Partnerships
For advisory on cell therapy partnership strategy, contact Kerlann Advisory.