Cancer Gene Therapy Market by Vector Type (Nonviral Vectors, Viral Vectors), Therapy Type (Ex Vivo, In Vivo), Indication, Stage, End User - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Cancer Gene Therapy Market was valued at USD 2.75 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 3.30 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 19.94%, reaching USD 11.81 billion by 2032.
A strategic primer that contextualizes scientific foundations, clinical translation milestones, and operational considerations shaping contemporary cancer gene therapy development
Cancer gene therapy has evolved from an experimental concept into a cornerstone of precision oncology, where genetic modification strategies are designed to correct, replace, or augment cellular functions to combat malignancy. Initially centered on single-gene correction approaches, the field now encompasses an array of innovative modalities that manipulate immune responses, deliver therapeutic payloads, and reprogram tumor microenvironments. These advances have emerged at the intersection of molecular biology, vector engineering, and clinical translation, creating a multidisciplinary ecosystem in which scientific discoveries rapidly inform clinical trial design and vice versa.
As the technology base has matured, regulatory frameworks and clinical practice have adapted to accommodate novel endpoints and manufacturing paradigms, while academic-industry partnerships have accelerated pathway development. Consequently, decision-makers must appreciate both the biological rationale and the operational complexities inherent to gene therapy programs, including patient selection, vector delivery, and long-term safety monitoring. In this context, stakeholders need concise synthesis of scientific progress aligned with pragmatic considerations for clinical development, supply chain resilience, and cross-sector collaboration. Understanding these foundational dimensions enables informed strategy setting and fosters productive dialogue between clinicians, developers, payers, and regulators.
An incisive overview of how vector innovation, engineered cell therapies, manufacturing modernization, and regulatory clarity are reshaping the cancer gene therapy ecosystem
Recent years have witnessed transformative shifts across the cancer gene therapy landscape driven by innovations in vector design, immune modulation, and manufacturing scalability. Next-generation vectors have improved tropism and reduced immunogenicity, enabling more precise delivery of genetic payloads to tumor or immune cells. Concurrently, engineered cell therapies that combine gene editing and synthetic biology have expanded therapeutic scope beyond single-target approaches, allowing for multi-antigen targeting and programmable control circuits that enhance efficacy while mitigating on-target off-tumor effects.
Moreover, improvements in manufacturing technologies have reduced process variability and shortened production timelines, making personalized autologous therapies more operationally feasible. Commercial logistics and cryopreservation strategies have evolved to support complex cold-chain networks, thereby expanding clinical accessibility. In parallel, regulatory agencies have increasingly provided clearer guidance on risk-benefit assessment and long-term follow-up, fostering a more predictable environment for clinical development. As a result, stakeholders must now navigate a landscape where scientific breakthroughs are rapidly translated into clinical protocols, and where strategic partnerships and platform technologies play an outsized role in determining which innovations reach patients.
A pragmatic analysis of how forthcoming United States tariff changes could influence supply chain resilience, procurement strategies, and regional manufacturing decisions in cancer gene therapy
Policy shifts in trade and tariffs can exert material influence on the global pharmaceutical supply chain, and the announced United States tariff measures slated for 2025 merit careful consideration within cancer gene therapy strategic planning. Tariffs can raise the cost of imported raw materials, reagents, and specialized equipment integral to vector production, closed-system bioreactors, and high-purity consumables. Consequently, organizations reliant on cross-border suppliers may face margin pressure or need to adjust sourcing strategies to preserve program economics.
In addition, tariffs can alter procurement timelines as vendors recalibrate their distribution strategies and customers reassess supplier contracts to mitigate exposure. For clinical programs that hinge on timely delivery of materials or instruments, procurement delays could translate into protocol amendments or enrollment disruptions. Conversely, tariff-driven incentives to localize supply chains may accelerate regional manufacturing investments, prompting capacity allocation decisions and new partnership opportunities.
Therefore, executives should evaluate supplier diversification, engage with contract manufacturers that offer multi-jurisdictional capacity, and model tariff exposure across R&D and commercial operations. Strategic procurement practices, including advance contracting and inventory optimization, can reduce near-term disruption while longer-term responses may include selective localization of critical manufacturing steps to enhance resilience and regulatory compliance.
A comprehensive segmentation-driven synthesis that links vector categories, therapy modalities, clinical indications, development stages, and end-user contexts to strategic decisions in cancer gene therapy
Segment-specific insights provide a nuanced lens through which to evaluate technology choices, clinical pathways, and commercialization strategies. Based on Vector Type, the market is studied across Nonviral Vectors and Viral Vectors. The Nonviral Vectors is further studied across Lipid Nanoparticles, Physical Methods, and Polymeric Nanoparticles. The Viral Vectors is further studied across Adeno-Associated, Adenoviral, Lentiviral, and Retroviral. Each vector family presents distinct trade-offs in payload capacity, immunogenicity, and manufacturability, which influence candidate selection and clinical strategy.
Based on Therapy Type, the market is studied across Ex Vivo and In Vivo. Ex vivo approaches enable intensive cellular engineering with controlled expansion and release testing, whereas in vivo therapies prioritize direct delivery strategies and are often constrained by systemic distribution and immune recognition considerations. Based on Indication, the market is studied across Hematological Cancers and Solid Tumors. The Hematological Cancers is further studied across Leukemia, Lymphoma, and Myeloma. The Solid Tumors is further studied across Breast Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Lung Cancer, and Prostate Cancer. Clinical biology and tumor microenvironment differences between hematologic and solid malignancies necessitate divergent vector designs, dosing strategies, and safety monitoring frameworks.
Based on Stage, the market is studied across Clinical Trials, Commercial, and Preclinical. The Clinical Trials is further studied across Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III. Developmental stage shapes regulatory interactions, endpoint selection, and manufacturing scale requirements, and stakeholders must align investment and operational plans with the unique demands of each phase. Based on End User, the market is studied across Hospitals And Clinics, Oncology Centers, and Research Laboratories. End-user capabilities influence adoption timelines, training imperatives, and cold-chain logistics, underscoring the importance of aligning product design with clinical practice environments.
A regionally differentiated assessment detailing how regulatory variation, manufacturing capacity, clinical trial activity, and healthcare infrastructure shape strategic choices across global markets
Regional dynamics exert profound influence on regulatory pathways, talent availability, manufacturing capacity, and patient access. In the Americas, innovation hubs, venture funding ecosystems, and integrated reimbursement pathways have accelerated the translation of therapies from proof-of-concept to clinical proof points, while regulatory mechanisms emphasize expedited review programs and structured post-approval monitoring. In contrast, Europe, Middle East & Africa displays heterogeneous regulatory frameworks and reimbursement environments that require nuanced market-entry strategies; here, pan-regional collaborations and centralized manufacturing hubs can help rationalize distribution and regulatory submissions.
Asia-Pacific presents a rapidly evolving landscape characterized by expanding clinical trial activity, growing biomanufacturing capacity, and increasing government support for biotechnology innovation. Cross-border collaborations and regional centers of excellence are emerging to support both localized development and global supply chains. Consequently, companies should tailor their clinical deployment, regulatory engagement, and manufacturing footprint to reflect regional regulatory expectations, healthcare infrastructure maturity, and local stakeholder partnerships. By integrating regional insights into strategic planning, organizations can optimize trial site selection, supply chain routing, and commercialization timing to better align with patient needs and health system capacities.
A focused competitive analysis emphasizing platform investments, manufacturing partnerships, licensing strategies, and operational rigor as determinants of long-term leadership in cancer gene therapy
Company behavior within cancer gene therapy is defined by a blend of scientific platform investments, strategic partnerships, and manufacturing commitments. Leading developers have prioritized platform technologies that enable iterative product development across multiple indications, in addition to cultivating partnerships with contract development and manufacturing organizations to secure scalable capacity. Through these collaborations, firms can mitigate single-site risk and accelerate timelines for bridging early clinical evidence into later-stage development.
Moreover, strategic licensing and co-development agreements continue to serve as efficient routes to access complementary capabilities, such as vector engineering expertise or regional regulatory experience. Investors and corporate partners increasingly scrutinize the robustness of quality systems, comparability strategies, and supply continuity plans, recognizing these operational elements as decisive for long-term viability. As a result, companies that combine strong scientific differentiation with disciplined manufacturing and commercial planning are positioned to navigate regulatory expectations and payer engagement more effectively, while those that underinvest in scalable operations may encounter barriers as programs transition toward broader clinical adoption.
Actionable strategic guidance focused on aligning platform innovation, manufacturing resilience, regulatory readiness, and commercialization planning to accelerate durable value creation in gene therapy
Industry leaders should adopt integrated strategies that align scientific innovation with operational resilience and regulatory foresight. Investment in versatile vector platforms and modular manufacturing systems will enhance the ability to pivot across indications and accommodate evolving clinical insights. In parallel, cultivating reliable partnerships with contract manufacturers that offer geographically dispersed capacity can reduce exposure to trade policy shifts and supply disruptions. Leaders should also invest in regulatory intelligence capabilities that anticipate evolving safety expectations and streamline interactions with health authorities.
Furthermore, prioritizing end-user readiness through clinician training programs, standardized treatment protocols, and logistics optimization will facilitate adoption and improve patient outcomes. Organizations should invest in robust pharmacovigilance and long-term follow-up infrastructures to address safety signals and support reimbursement discussions. Lastly, embedding commercial considerations early in development-such as health economics evidence generation, payer engagement, and real-world data strategies-will enhance the commercial viability of gene therapies and improve alignment between clinical promise and sustainable access.
A transparent mixed-methods research framework combining stakeholder interviews, peer-reviewed literature, and regulatory analysis to ensure empirically grounded and actionable insights
This analysis synthesizes insights from a rigorous mixed-method research approach that combines primary interviews with industry stakeholders, systematic review of peer-reviewed literature, and scrutiny of regulatory guidance documents and clinical trial registries. Primary engagements encompassed discussions with clinical investigators, manufacturing experts, product development leaders, and regulatory affairs specialists to capture firsthand perspectives on operational constraints, scientific priorities, and deployment challenges. Secondary research included analysis of recent high-impact publications, technology primers, and policy statements to ensure alignment with prevailing scientific consensus and regulatory expectations.
Triangulation across data sources underpinned key conclusions, and methodological transparency was maintained through clear documentation of interview protocols, inclusion criteria for literature review, and the provenance of publicly available regulatory materials. Where possible, interpretive care was applied to distinguish well-established findings from emergent hypotheses, and sensitivity to regional regulatory heterogeneity was preserved when extrapolating implications for practice. This layered methodology ensures that insights are both empirically grounded and practically relevant for decision-makers across industry, clinical, and policy domains.
A conclusive synthesis highlighting the convergence of scientific progress, operational maturity, and regulatory evolution as the foundation for sustainable advancement in cancer gene therapy
Cancer gene therapy stands at an inflection point where scientific innovation, manufacturing advances, and regulatory evolution converge to create tangible opportunities for durable therapeutic impact. While technical challenges remain-such as achieving durable responses in solid tumors and managing complex supply chains-the ecosystem has matured in ways that enable more deliberate strategic planning. Stakeholders who integrate robust platform science with operational discipline and proactive regulatory engagement will be better positioned to translate early clinical promise into sustained patient access.
Importantly, success in this sector requires holistic thinking that spans R&D, manufacturing, clinical operations, and commercial strategy. By emphasizing resilient supply chains, scalable manufacturing, and evidence generation tailored to payer expectations, developers can reduce the translational friction that historically constrained broader adoption of advanced therapies. Continued collaboration among academic institutions, industry partners, and regulators will be critical to refining safety frameworks, optimizing delivery platforms, and expanding the therapeutic reach of gene-based interventions.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
A strategic primer that contextualizes scientific foundations, clinical translation milestones, and operational considerations shaping contemporary cancer gene therapy development
Cancer gene therapy has evolved from an experimental concept into a cornerstone of precision oncology, where genetic modification strategies are designed to correct, replace, or augment cellular functions to combat malignancy. Initially centered on single-gene correction approaches, the field now encompasses an array of innovative modalities that manipulate immune responses, deliver therapeutic payloads, and reprogram tumor microenvironments. These advances have emerged at the intersection of molecular biology, vector engineering, and clinical translation, creating a multidisciplinary ecosystem in which scientific discoveries rapidly inform clinical trial design and vice versa.
As the technology base has matured, regulatory frameworks and clinical practice have adapted to accommodate novel endpoints and manufacturing paradigms, while academic-industry partnerships have accelerated pathway development. Consequently, decision-makers must appreciate both the biological rationale and the operational complexities inherent to gene therapy programs, including patient selection, vector delivery, and long-term safety monitoring. In this context, stakeholders need concise synthesis of scientific progress aligned with pragmatic considerations for clinical development, supply chain resilience, and cross-sector collaboration. Understanding these foundational dimensions enables informed strategy setting and fosters productive dialogue between clinicians, developers, payers, and regulators.
An incisive overview of how vector innovation, engineered cell therapies, manufacturing modernization, and regulatory clarity are reshaping the cancer gene therapy ecosystem
Recent years have witnessed transformative shifts across the cancer gene therapy landscape driven by innovations in vector design, immune modulation, and manufacturing scalability. Next-generation vectors have improved tropism and reduced immunogenicity, enabling more precise delivery of genetic payloads to tumor or immune cells. Concurrently, engineered cell therapies that combine gene editing and synthetic biology have expanded therapeutic scope beyond single-target approaches, allowing for multi-antigen targeting and programmable control circuits that enhance efficacy while mitigating on-target off-tumor effects.
Moreover, improvements in manufacturing technologies have reduced process variability and shortened production timelines, making personalized autologous therapies more operationally feasible. Commercial logistics and cryopreservation strategies have evolved to support complex cold-chain networks, thereby expanding clinical accessibility. In parallel, regulatory agencies have increasingly provided clearer guidance on risk-benefit assessment and long-term follow-up, fostering a more predictable environment for clinical development. As a result, stakeholders must now navigate a landscape where scientific breakthroughs are rapidly translated into clinical protocols, and where strategic partnerships and platform technologies play an outsized role in determining which innovations reach patients.
A pragmatic analysis of how forthcoming United States tariff changes could influence supply chain resilience, procurement strategies, and regional manufacturing decisions in cancer gene therapy
Policy shifts in trade and tariffs can exert material influence on the global pharmaceutical supply chain, and the announced United States tariff measures slated for 2025 merit careful consideration within cancer gene therapy strategic planning. Tariffs can raise the cost of imported raw materials, reagents, and specialized equipment integral to vector production, closed-system bioreactors, and high-purity consumables. Consequently, organizations reliant on cross-border suppliers may face margin pressure or need to adjust sourcing strategies to preserve program economics.
In addition, tariffs can alter procurement timelines as vendors recalibrate their distribution strategies and customers reassess supplier contracts to mitigate exposure. For clinical programs that hinge on timely delivery of materials or instruments, procurement delays could translate into protocol amendments or enrollment disruptions. Conversely, tariff-driven incentives to localize supply chains may accelerate regional manufacturing investments, prompting capacity allocation decisions and new partnership opportunities.
Therefore, executives should evaluate supplier diversification, engage with contract manufacturers that offer multi-jurisdictional capacity, and model tariff exposure across R&D and commercial operations. Strategic procurement practices, including advance contracting and inventory optimization, can reduce near-term disruption while longer-term responses may include selective localization of critical manufacturing steps to enhance resilience and regulatory compliance.
A comprehensive segmentation-driven synthesis that links vector categories, therapy modalities, clinical indications, development stages, and end-user contexts to strategic decisions in cancer gene therapy
Segment-specific insights provide a nuanced lens through which to evaluate technology choices, clinical pathways, and commercialization strategies. Based on Vector Type, the market is studied across Nonviral Vectors and Viral Vectors. The Nonviral Vectors is further studied across Lipid Nanoparticles, Physical Methods, and Polymeric Nanoparticles. The Viral Vectors is further studied across Adeno-Associated, Adenoviral, Lentiviral, and Retroviral. Each vector family presents distinct trade-offs in payload capacity, immunogenicity, and manufacturability, which influence candidate selection and clinical strategy.
Based on Therapy Type, the market is studied across Ex Vivo and In Vivo. Ex vivo approaches enable intensive cellular engineering with controlled expansion and release testing, whereas in vivo therapies prioritize direct delivery strategies and are often constrained by systemic distribution and immune recognition considerations. Based on Indication, the market is studied across Hematological Cancers and Solid Tumors. The Hematological Cancers is further studied across Leukemia, Lymphoma, and Myeloma. The Solid Tumors is further studied across Breast Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Lung Cancer, and Prostate Cancer. Clinical biology and tumor microenvironment differences between hematologic and solid malignancies necessitate divergent vector designs, dosing strategies, and safety monitoring frameworks.
Based on Stage, the market is studied across Clinical Trials, Commercial, and Preclinical. The Clinical Trials is further studied across Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III. Developmental stage shapes regulatory interactions, endpoint selection, and manufacturing scale requirements, and stakeholders must align investment and operational plans with the unique demands of each phase. Based on End User, the market is studied across Hospitals And Clinics, Oncology Centers, and Research Laboratories. End-user capabilities influence adoption timelines, training imperatives, and cold-chain logistics, underscoring the importance of aligning product design with clinical practice environments.
A regionally differentiated assessment detailing how regulatory variation, manufacturing capacity, clinical trial activity, and healthcare infrastructure shape strategic choices across global markets
Regional dynamics exert profound influence on regulatory pathways, talent availability, manufacturing capacity, and patient access. In the Americas, innovation hubs, venture funding ecosystems, and integrated reimbursement pathways have accelerated the translation of therapies from proof-of-concept to clinical proof points, while regulatory mechanisms emphasize expedited review programs and structured post-approval monitoring. In contrast, Europe, Middle East & Africa displays heterogeneous regulatory frameworks and reimbursement environments that require nuanced market-entry strategies; here, pan-regional collaborations and centralized manufacturing hubs can help rationalize distribution and regulatory submissions.
Asia-Pacific presents a rapidly evolving landscape characterized by expanding clinical trial activity, growing biomanufacturing capacity, and increasing government support for biotechnology innovation. Cross-border collaborations and regional centers of excellence are emerging to support both localized development and global supply chains. Consequently, companies should tailor their clinical deployment, regulatory engagement, and manufacturing footprint to reflect regional regulatory expectations, healthcare infrastructure maturity, and local stakeholder partnerships. By integrating regional insights into strategic planning, organizations can optimize trial site selection, supply chain routing, and commercialization timing to better align with patient needs and health system capacities.
A focused competitive analysis emphasizing platform investments, manufacturing partnerships, licensing strategies, and operational rigor as determinants of long-term leadership in cancer gene therapy
Company behavior within cancer gene therapy is defined by a blend of scientific platform investments, strategic partnerships, and manufacturing commitments. Leading developers have prioritized platform technologies that enable iterative product development across multiple indications, in addition to cultivating partnerships with contract development and manufacturing organizations to secure scalable capacity. Through these collaborations, firms can mitigate single-site risk and accelerate timelines for bridging early clinical evidence into later-stage development.
Moreover, strategic licensing and co-development agreements continue to serve as efficient routes to access complementary capabilities, such as vector engineering expertise or regional regulatory experience. Investors and corporate partners increasingly scrutinize the robustness of quality systems, comparability strategies, and supply continuity plans, recognizing these operational elements as decisive for long-term viability. As a result, companies that combine strong scientific differentiation with disciplined manufacturing and commercial planning are positioned to navigate regulatory expectations and payer engagement more effectively, while those that underinvest in scalable operations may encounter barriers as programs transition toward broader clinical adoption.
Actionable strategic guidance focused on aligning platform innovation, manufacturing resilience, regulatory readiness, and commercialization planning to accelerate durable value creation in gene therapy
Industry leaders should adopt integrated strategies that align scientific innovation with operational resilience and regulatory foresight. Investment in versatile vector platforms and modular manufacturing systems will enhance the ability to pivot across indications and accommodate evolving clinical insights. In parallel, cultivating reliable partnerships with contract manufacturers that offer geographically dispersed capacity can reduce exposure to trade policy shifts and supply disruptions. Leaders should also invest in regulatory intelligence capabilities that anticipate evolving safety expectations and streamline interactions with health authorities.
Furthermore, prioritizing end-user readiness through clinician training programs, standardized treatment protocols, and logistics optimization will facilitate adoption and improve patient outcomes. Organizations should invest in robust pharmacovigilance and long-term follow-up infrastructures to address safety signals and support reimbursement discussions. Lastly, embedding commercial considerations early in development-such as health economics evidence generation, payer engagement, and real-world data strategies-will enhance the commercial viability of gene therapies and improve alignment between clinical promise and sustainable access.
A transparent mixed-methods research framework combining stakeholder interviews, peer-reviewed literature, and regulatory analysis to ensure empirically grounded and actionable insights
This analysis synthesizes insights from a rigorous mixed-method research approach that combines primary interviews with industry stakeholders, systematic review of peer-reviewed literature, and scrutiny of regulatory guidance documents and clinical trial registries. Primary engagements encompassed discussions with clinical investigators, manufacturing experts, product development leaders, and regulatory affairs specialists to capture firsthand perspectives on operational constraints, scientific priorities, and deployment challenges. Secondary research included analysis of recent high-impact publications, technology primers, and policy statements to ensure alignment with prevailing scientific consensus and regulatory expectations.
Triangulation across data sources underpinned key conclusions, and methodological transparency was maintained through clear documentation of interview protocols, inclusion criteria for literature review, and the provenance of publicly available regulatory materials. Where possible, interpretive care was applied to distinguish well-established findings from emergent hypotheses, and sensitivity to regional regulatory heterogeneity was preserved when extrapolating implications for practice. This layered methodology ensures that insights are both empirically grounded and practically relevant for decision-makers across industry, clinical, and policy domains.
A conclusive synthesis highlighting the convergence of scientific progress, operational maturity, and regulatory evolution as the foundation for sustainable advancement in cancer gene therapy
Cancer gene therapy stands at an inflection point where scientific innovation, manufacturing advances, and regulatory evolution converge to create tangible opportunities for durable therapeutic impact. While technical challenges remain-such as achieving durable responses in solid tumors and managing complex supply chains-the ecosystem has matured in ways that enable more deliberate strategic planning. Stakeholders who integrate robust platform science with operational discipline and proactive regulatory engagement will be better positioned to translate early clinical promise into sustained patient access.
Importantly, success in this sector requires holistic thinking that spans R&D, manufacturing, clinical operations, and commercial strategy. By emphasizing resilient supply chains, scalable manufacturing, and evidence generation tailored to payer expectations, developers can reduce the translational friction that historically constrained broader adoption of advanced therapies. Continued collaboration among academic institutions, industry partners, and regulators will be critical to refining safety frameworks, optimizing delivery platforms, and expanding the therapeutic reach of gene-based interventions.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
184 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. CRISPR-based multiplexed gene editing strategies refining CAR-T cell persistence in solid tumor treatments
- 5.2. Nanoformulated lipid nanoparticle carriers enabling in vivo targeted delivery of therapeutic genes to tumor tissue
- 5.3. Development of oncolytic viral vectors expressing immunomodulatory cytokines to enhance tumor eradication
- 5.4. Integration of AI-driven bioinformatics for personalized neoantigen identification in gene therapy vaccine design
- 5.5. Emergence of automated closed-system manufacturing platforms accelerating GMP production of viral gene therapy vectors
- 5.6. Strategic alliances between biotech innovators and CDMOs streamlining clinical translation of cancer gene therapies
- 5.7. Expanding regulatory frameworks supporting expedited approval pathways for novel gene therapy oncology treatments
- 5.8. Advances in multiplexed base editing techniques to correct oncogenic point mutations in solid tumor cells in situ
- 5.9. Deploying multi-modal combination therapies coupling gene therapy with immune checkpoint blockade to overcome tumor resistance mechanisms
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Cancer Gene Therapy Market, by Vector Type
- 8.1. Nonviral Vectors
- 8.1.1. Lipid Nanoparticles
- 8.1.2. Physical Methods
- 8.1.3. Polymeric Nanoparticles
- 8.2. Viral Vectors
- 8.2.1. Adeno-Associated
- 8.2.2. Adenoviral
- 8.2.3. Lentiviral
- 8.2.4. Retroviral
- 9. Cancer Gene Therapy Market, by Therapy Type
- 9.1. Ex Vivo
- 9.2. In Vivo
- 10. Cancer Gene Therapy Market, by Indication
- 10.1. Hematological Cancers
- 10.1.1. Leukemia
- 10.1.2. Lymphoma
- 10.1.3. Myeloma
- 10.2. Solid Tumors
- 10.2.1. Breast Cancer
- 10.2.2. Colorectal Cancer
- 10.2.3. Lung Cancer
- 10.2.4. Prostate Cancer
- 11. Cancer Gene Therapy Market, by Stage
- 11.1. Clinical Trials
- 11.1.1. Phase I
- 11.1.2. Phase II
- 11.1.3. Phase III
- 11.2. Commercial
- 11.3. Preclinical
- 12. Cancer Gene Therapy Market, by End User
- 12.1. Hospitals And Clinics
- 12.2. Oncology Centers
- 12.3. Research Laboratories
- 13. Cancer Gene Therapy Market, by Region
- 13.1. Americas
- 13.1.1. North America
- 13.1.2. Latin America
- 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 13.2.1. Europe
- 13.2.2. Middle East
- 13.2.3. Africa
- 13.3. Asia-Pacific
- 14. Cancer Gene Therapy Market, by Group
- 14.1. ASEAN
- 14.2. GCC
- 14.3. European Union
- 14.4. BRICS
- 14.5. G7
- 14.6. NATO
- 15. Cancer Gene Therapy Market, by Country
- 15.1. United States
- 15.2. Canada
- 15.3. Mexico
- 15.4. Brazil
- 15.5. United Kingdom
- 15.6. Germany
- 15.7. France
- 15.8. Russia
- 15.9. Italy
- 15.10. Spain
- 15.11. China
- 15.12. India
- 15.13. Japan
- 15.14. Australia
- 15.15. South Korea
- 16. Competitive Landscape
- 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 16.3. Competitive Analysis
- 16.3.1. Amgen Inc.
- 16.3.2. Autolus Therapeutics plc
- 16.3.3. Bayer AG
- 16.3.4. BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
- 16.3.5. BioNTech SE
- 16.3.6. bluebird bio, Inc.
- 16.3.7. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
- 16.3.8. Candel Therapeutics, Inc.
- 16.3.9. CARsgen Therapeutics Holdings Limited
- 16.3.10. Cellectis S.A.
- 16.3.11. CRISPR Therapeutics AG
- 16.3.12. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
- 16.3.13. Fate Therapeutics, Inc.
- 16.3.14. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.
- 16.3.15. Janssen Biotech, Inc.
- 16.3.16. Kite Pharma, Inc.
- 16.3.17. Novartis AG
- 16.3.18. Precigen, Inc.
- 16.3.19. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
- 16.3.20. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
