1. Introduction to Cancer Immunotherapy (Page 6)
2. Mechanism of Cancer Immunotherapy (Page 11)
2.1 Genetic engineering
2.2 Hybridoma Technology
2.3 Humanization of Monoclonal Antibodies
2.4 Overcoming the HAMA Response via Modern Technology
3. Types of Cancer Immunotherapy (Page 14)
3.1 Monoclonal Antibodies
3.2 Checkpoint Inhibitors
3.3 Vaccination
3.4 Non Specific Immunotherapies
4. Why Need for Cancer Immunotherapy (Page 23)
5. Global Cancer Immunotherapy Market Overview (Page 26)
6. Cancer Immunotherapy Market Dynamics (Page 33)
6.1 Favorable Market Drivers
6.2 Key issues to be Discussed
6.3 Future of Cancer Immunotherapy
7. Cancer Monoclonal Antibodies Clinical Pipeline by Phase & Country (Page 41)
7.1 Clinical Pipeline Overview
7.2 Clinical Pipeline Insight: Research till Registration
7.3 Marketed Cancer Monoclonal Antibodies
8. Cancer Vaccine Clinical Pipeline by Phase & Country (Page 1088)
8.1 Clinical Pipeline Overview
8.2 Clinical Pipeline Insight: Research till Registration
8.3 Marketed Cancer Vaccines
9. Oncolytic Viruses Clinical Pipeline by Phase & Country (Page 1640)
9.1 Clinical Pipeline Overview
9.2 Clinical Pipeline insight: Research till Registration
10. Cancer Cytokine Therapy Clinical Trial Insight by Phase & Country (Page 1714)
10.1 Clinical Pipeline Overview
10.2 Clinical Pipeline Insight: Research till Preregistration
10.3 Marketed Cancer Cytokines Threapy
11. Cancer Cell Therapy Clinical Trial Insight by Phase & Country (Page 1844)
11.1 Clinical Pipeline Overview
11.2 Clinical Pipeline Insight: Research till Preregistration
11.3 Marketed Cancer Cell Therapy
12. Competitive Landscape: Business Overview & Product Pipeline (Page 1977)
12.1 Advaxis
12.2 Celldex Therapeutics
12.3 Dendreon Corporation
12.4 Galena Biopharma
12.5 ImmunoCellular Therapeutics
12.6 ImmunoGen
12.7 Inovio Pharmaceuticals
12.8 Merck
12.9 NeoStem Oncology
12.10 NewLink Genetics
12.11 Northwest Biotherapeutics
12.12 Novartis
12.13 Peregrine Pharmaceuticals
12.14 Roche
12.15 Seattle Genetics
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.