Immuno-Oncology Market by Therapy Type (Cancer Vaccines, Cell Therapy, Checkpoint Inhibitors), Indication (Breast Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Lung Cancer), Line Of Therapy, End User - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Immuno-Oncology Market was valued at USD 5.89 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 6.49 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 10.29%, reaching USD 12.91 billion by 2032.
A concise orientation to the scientific advances, translational challenges, and commercial dynamics reshaping modern immuno-oncology development and strategy
Immuno-oncology stands at an inflection point where scientific breakthroughs, translational pipelines, and commercial realities converge. Recent advances in cellular engineering, neoantigen targeting and checkpoint modulation have shifted clinical paradigms and broadened therapeutic possibilities across a spectrum of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. As a result, drug developers and institutional stakeholders now operate within a landscape shaped by intensified collaboration between industry and academia, evolving regulatory expectations, and an expanding array of platform technologies that enable precision immunotherapy development.
This introduction synthesizes the forces reshaping the field, emphasizing how molecular biology innovations and improvements in manufacturing scale converge to accelerate clinical translation. It also highlights the importance of integrated biomarker strategies and adaptive clinical designs for de-risking late-stage development. By framing the report around scientific drivers, operational bottlenecks, and stakeholder incentives, readers will be positioned to understand downstream sections that discuss landscape shifts, segmentation nuances, regional dynamics, and recommended actions for leaders aiming to sustain competitive advantage.
How convergent technological breakthroughs, regulatory evolution, and commercialization pressures are reshaping clinical strategies and industrial capabilities in immuno-oncology
The immuno-oncology landscape has undergone transformative shifts driven by convergent technological and organizational changes that extend beyond individual product successes. Breakthroughs in engineered cell therapies and next-generation checkpoint strategies have validated immune modulation as a sustainable therapeutic axis, prompting broader investment into combination regimens and platforms that pair cellular products with targeted biologics. Concurrently, advances in sequencing and computational biology have enabled more precise antigen identification, fueling renewed interest in personalized vaccine constructs and neoantigen-directed approaches.
Operationally, the sector has experienced a realignment: manufacturing capacity expansion and the rise of specialized contract development and manufacturing organizations now coexist with efforts to develop allogeneic, off-the-shelf modalities that aim to reduce cost and complexity. Regulatory frameworks have adapted to accommodate novel modalities, but payers and providers increasingly demand robust real-world evidence and demonstrable value in terms of long-term survival and quality-of-life outcomes. As a consequence, strategic priorities have shifted toward integrated development plans that consider clinical differentiation, commercial access, and scalable production pathways from early development onward.
An analysis of how 2025 tariff adjustments have amplified supply chain costs, prompted strategic regionalization, and reshaped operational priorities across immuno-oncology players
The cumulative impact of tariff policy changes enacted in 2025 reverberates across global immuno-oncology value chains, affecting sourcing, clinical operations, and manufacturing economics. Increased levies on imported laboratory reagents, single-use bioprocessing components, and specialized instrumentation raise the marginal cost of clinical trial execution and commercial production. In practice, higher input costs compound the existing capital intensity of advanced therapy manufacturing, incentivizing stakeholders to revisit sourcing strategies, optimize inventory approaches, and accelerate qualification of alternate suppliers within compliant jurisdictions.
In response, companies are increasingly evaluating strategic options such as regionalizing supply chains, forging deeper partnerships with domestic contract manufacturers, and investing in process intensification to offset higher per-unit input expenses. Clinical sponsors are exploring trial design efficiencies to reduce per-patient cost without compromising statistical rigor, while commercial teams prioritize contracting structures that mitigate pricing volatility. Across all functions, the tariff environment underscores the importance of supply chain resilience, regulatory foresight, and scenario planning to preserve program timelines and protect long-term value creation.
A multidimensional segmentation synthesis linking therapy modalities, clinical indications, care settings, lines of therapy and mechanisms to strategic development choices
A robust segmentation framework illuminates how clinical and commercial strategies diverge across therapy type, indication, end user, line of therapy and mechanism, revealing distinct opportunity archetypes and risk profiles. Based on therapy type, core modalities include cancer vaccines, cell therapy, checkpoint inhibitors, cytokines and oncolytic viruses, where cancer vaccines are further distinguished by dendritic cell vaccines, DNA vaccines and peptide vaccines and cell therapy further breaks down into CAR-T therapy, NK cell therapy and TCR-T therapy with CAR-T approaches subdivided into allogeneic and autologous formats and checkpoint inhibitor strategies encompassing CTLA-4, PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. This granularity clarifies technology-driven differentiation and outlines where platform investments will influence time-to-market and cost of goods considerations.
Based on indication, clinical focus spans breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, lymphoma and melanoma, where breast cancer analyses separate Her2-positive and triple-negative subtypes and lung cancer distinguishes non-small cell lung cancer from small cell lung cancer while melanoma is parsed into cutaneous and uveal disease variants. These clinical partitions inform target product profiles and trial design choices. Based on end user, adoption pathways vary across academic institutes, cancer research institutes, clinics and hospitals, each with different clinical infrastructure, payer dynamics and procurement cycles. Based on line of therapy, development strategies target first line, second line, third line and fourth line or beyond, reflecting differing evidentiary expectations and patient populations. Finally, based on mechanism, the market bifurcates into active immunotherapy and passive immunotherapy with active approaches including cancer vaccines and cytokine-based therapies and passive constructs encompassing adoptive cell transfer, checkpoint inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies and where adoptive cell transfer further specifies CAR-T and TCR-T therapies. Together, these segmentation lenses enable clearer prioritization of investment, clinical development sequencing and commercialization pathways.
How divergent regulatory environments, clinical infrastructure and manufacturing capacity across global regions shape differentiated strategies for development and commercialization
Regional dynamics exert a pronounced influence over development strategies, regulatory timelines and commercialization pathways, and observing geographic patterns clarifies where investment and capability building will deliver the greatest strategic benefit. In the Americas, a concentration of clinical trial infrastructure, advanced manufacturing capacity, and investor capital sustains rapid clinical translation and commercialization, yet it also faces heightened payer scrutiny that shapes evidence generation strategies. In Europe, Middle East & Africa, diverse regulatory approaches and heterogeneous health systems create both challenges and opportunities for localized market access tactics, while strong academic consortia and public-private partnerships often catalyze translational breakthroughs.
In the Asia-Pacific region, expanding clinical trial activity and government incentives for biotech innovation are accelerating local capability development, and regional manufacturers are scaling to serve both domestic and global demand. Each geographic cluster requires tailored approaches to regulatory engagement, reimbursement planning and supply chain design. When combined, these regional perspectives guide decisions on where to prioritize clinical investment, how to design registrational programs, and which partner ecosystems to leverage for manufacturing and distribution.
An evaluation of how incumbent pharmaceutical players, agile biotech innovators, academic spinouts and specialized CDMOs are structuring partnerships and competitive moats
Key company-level dynamics reflect a bifurcated landscape where established pharmaceutical companies, agile biotechnology firms, academic spinouts and specialized contract development and manufacturing organizations each play distinct roles. Large pharmas continue to leverage deep regulatory experience and commercial infrastructure to advance combination regimens and broaden indications for immuno-oncology assets, while smaller biotech innovators drive platform-level breakthroughs in areas such as engineered cytokines, neoantigen vaccines and cell-engineering technologies. Academic institutions and research hospitals act as early adopters and incubators for proof-of-concept work, often catalyzing spinouts that attract venture and strategic capital.
Meanwhile, CDMOs and technology providers scale capabilities in GMP manufacturing, automation and supply chain services, enabling companies with limited in-house capacity to pursue clinical expansion. Across these participants, collaboration models increasingly blend licensing, co-development and equity alliances to share risk and accelerate access to complementary capabilities. Strategic focus areas for incumbent and emerging players include manufacturing scalability, biomarker-driven patient selection, and integrated evidence generation plans that align registrational objectives with payer expectations.
Practical strategic moves for industry leaders to bolster manufacturing resilience, integrate biomarker strategies, and align evidence generation with payer expectations
Actionable recommendations prioritize immediate operational adjustments alongside medium-term strategic investments to preserve optionality and accelerate value capture. First, leaders should prioritize manufacturing resilience by diversifying qualified suppliers, investing in process intensification, and validating regional manufacturing partners to mitigate tariff and logistics risk. Second, integrating biomarker strategies early within clinical development will de-risk registrational pathways and enhance payer conversations; this includes embedding longitudinal sampling, advanced immune profiling and pragmatic endpoints that demonstrate durable benefit.
Third, to sustain competitive differentiation, companies should pursue platform synergies-combining cellular engineering, optimized delivery systems, and next-generation checkpoint modulation-to create modular product families that scale across indications. Fourth, commercial teams must align evidence generation with value-based contracting expectations by designing real-world evidence capture plans and health economic modeling in parallel with late-stage trials. Finally, leaders should cultivate multidisciplinary partnerships with academic centers and CDMOs to accelerate translational pipelines while controlling capital intensity, thereby ensuring programs remain robust to policy and supply chain disruptions.
A description of the mixed-method research approach, expert validation steps, and analytic frameworks that underpin the immuno-oncology insights and recommendations
This research combines structured primary engagement with rigorous secondary synthesis to ensure findings reflect both contemporary practice and validated expert judgement. Primary research comprised interviews with clinical investigators, manufacturing experts, payer advisors and industry executives to gather nuanced perspectives on development bottlenecks and commercial barriers. Secondary research drew on peer-reviewed literature, clinical trial registries, regulatory guidance documents and patent filings to map technological trajectories and regulatory precedents. Data points underwent triangulation across multiple sources to validate conclusions and minimize bias.
Analytical methods included qualitative thematic analysis of expert inputs, cross-sectional mapping of clinical pipelines by modality and indication, and operational assessment of manufacturing and supply chain constraints. Risk scenarios were developed to stress-test assumptions around policy shifts, supply disruptions and clinical readouts. Findings were reviewed and refined through iterative expert validation rounds to ensure recommendations remain practical, defensible and actionable for decision-makers across scientific, operational and commercial functions.
A concise forward-looking synthesis underscoring the necessity of aligning scientific innovation with operational readiness and payer-focused evidence generation
In conclusion, immuno-oncology’s maturation now demands strategies that integrate scientific innovation with operational discipline and payer-aware evidence generation. Technological advances in cell engineering, neoantigen targeting and immunomodulation have expanded the therapeutic toolkit, but sustainable success depends on addressing manufacturing scale, supply chain resilience and differentiated clinical evidence. Geopolitical and policy shifts add another layer of complexity that will favor organizations that proactively localize capabilities and diversify sourcing.
Moving forward, leaders who align early-stage scientific development with pragmatic commercialization planning will secure the clearest path to durable impact. Cross-sector partnerships, modular platform development and robust biomarker integration will underpin the next wave of clinically meaningful and commercially viable immuno-oncology therapies. By executing with agility and foresight, stakeholders can translate scientific promise into meaningful patient benefit and long-term organizational value.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
A concise orientation to the scientific advances, translational challenges, and commercial dynamics reshaping modern immuno-oncology development and strategy
Immuno-oncology stands at an inflection point where scientific breakthroughs, translational pipelines, and commercial realities converge. Recent advances in cellular engineering, neoantigen targeting and checkpoint modulation have shifted clinical paradigms and broadened therapeutic possibilities across a spectrum of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. As a result, drug developers and institutional stakeholders now operate within a landscape shaped by intensified collaboration between industry and academia, evolving regulatory expectations, and an expanding array of platform technologies that enable precision immunotherapy development.
This introduction synthesizes the forces reshaping the field, emphasizing how molecular biology innovations and improvements in manufacturing scale converge to accelerate clinical translation. It also highlights the importance of integrated biomarker strategies and adaptive clinical designs for de-risking late-stage development. By framing the report around scientific drivers, operational bottlenecks, and stakeholder incentives, readers will be positioned to understand downstream sections that discuss landscape shifts, segmentation nuances, regional dynamics, and recommended actions for leaders aiming to sustain competitive advantage.
How convergent technological breakthroughs, regulatory evolution, and commercialization pressures are reshaping clinical strategies and industrial capabilities in immuno-oncology
The immuno-oncology landscape has undergone transformative shifts driven by convergent technological and organizational changes that extend beyond individual product successes. Breakthroughs in engineered cell therapies and next-generation checkpoint strategies have validated immune modulation as a sustainable therapeutic axis, prompting broader investment into combination regimens and platforms that pair cellular products with targeted biologics. Concurrently, advances in sequencing and computational biology have enabled more precise antigen identification, fueling renewed interest in personalized vaccine constructs and neoantigen-directed approaches.
Operationally, the sector has experienced a realignment: manufacturing capacity expansion and the rise of specialized contract development and manufacturing organizations now coexist with efforts to develop allogeneic, off-the-shelf modalities that aim to reduce cost and complexity. Regulatory frameworks have adapted to accommodate novel modalities, but payers and providers increasingly demand robust real-world evidence and demonstrable value in terms of long-term survival and quality-of-life outcomes. As a consequence, strategic priorities have shifted toward integrated development plans that consider clinical differentiation, commercial access, and scalable production pathways from early development onward.
An analysis of how 2025 tariff adjustments have amplified supply chain costs, prompted strategic regionalization, and reshaped operational priorities across immuno-oncology players
The cumulative impact of tariff policy changes enacted in 2025 reverberates across global immuno-oncology value chains, affecting sourcing, clinical operations, and manufacturing economics. Increased levies on imported laboratory reagents, single-use bioprocessing components, and specialized instrumentation raise the marginal cost of clinical trial execution and commercial production. In practice, higher input costs compound the existing capital intensity of advanced therapy manufacturing, incentivizing stakeholders to revisit sourcing strategies, optimize inventory approaches, and accelerate qualification of alternate suppliers within compliant jurisdictions.
In response, companies are increasingly evaluating strategic options such as regionalizing supply chains, forging deeper partnerships with domestic contract manufacturers, and investing in process intensification to offset higher per-unit input expenses. Clinical sponsors are exploring trial design efficiencies to reduce per-patient cost without compromising statistical rigor, while commercial teams prioritize contracting structures that mitigate pricing volatility. Across all functions, the tariff environment underscores the importance of supply chain resilience, regulatory foresight, and scenario planning to preserve program timelines and protect long-term value creation.
A multidimensional segmentation synthesis linking therapy modalities, clinical indications, care settings, lines of therapy and mechanisms to strategic development choices
A robust segmentation framework illuminates how clinical and commercial strategies diverge across therapy type, indication, end user, line of therapy and mechanism, revealing distinct opportunity archetypes and risk profiles. Based on therapy type, core modalities include cancer vaccines, cell therapy, checkpoint inhibitors, cytokines and oncolytic viruses, where cancer vaccines are further distinguished by dendritic cell vaccines, DNA vaccines and peptide vaccines and cell therapy further breaks down into CAR-T therapy, NK cell therapy and TCR-T therapy with CAR-T approaches subdivided into allogeneic and autologous formats and checkpoint inhibitor strategies encompassing CTLA-4, PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. This granularity clarifies technology-driven differentiation and outlines where platform investments will influence time-to-market and cost of goods considerations.
Based on indication, clinical focus spans breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, lymphoma and melanoma, where breast cancer analyses separate Her2-positive and triple-negative subtypes and lung cancer distinguishes non-small cell lung cancer from small cell lung cancer while melanoma is parsed into cutaneous and uveal disease variants. These clinical partitions inform target product profiles and trial design choices. Based on end user, adoption pathways vary across academic institutes, cancer research institutes, clinics and hospitals, each with different clinical infrastructure, payer dynamics and procurement cycles. Based on line of therapy, development strategies target first line, second line, third line and fourth line or beyond, reflecting differing evidentiary expectations and patient populations. Finally, based on mechanism, the market bifurcates into active immunotherapy and passive immunotherapy with active approaches including cancer vaccines and cytokine-based therapies and passive constructs encompassing adoptive cell transfer, checkpoint inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies and where adoptive cell transfer further specifies CAR-T and TCR-T therapies. Together, these segmentation lenses enable clearer prioritization of investment, clinical development sequencing and commercialization pathways.
How divergent regulatory environments, clinical infrastructure and manufacturing capacity across global regions shape differentiated strategies for development and commercialization
Regional dynamics exert a pronounced influence over development strategies, regulatory timelines and commercialization pathways, and observing geographic patterns clarifies where investment and capability building will deliver the greatest strategic benefit. In the Americas, a concentration of clinical trial infrastructure, advanced manufacturing capacity, and investor capital sustains rapid clinical translation and commercialization, yet it also faces heightened payer scrutiny that shapes evidence generation strategies. In Europe, Middle East & Africa, diverse regulatory approaches and heterogeneous health systems create both challenges and opportunities for localized market access tactics, while strong academic consortia and public-private partnerships often catalyze translational breakthroughs.
In the Asia-Pacific region, expanding clinical trial activity and government incentives for biotech innovation are accelerating local capability development, and regional manufacturers are scaling to serve both domestic and global demand. Each geographic cluster requires tailored approaches to regulatory engagement, reimbursement planning and supply chain design. When combined, these regional perspectives guide decisions on where to prioritize clinical investment, how to design registrational programs, and which partner ecosystems to leverage for manufacturing and distribution.
An evaluation of how incumbent pharmaceutical players, agile biotech innovators, academic spinouts and specialized CDMOs are structuring partnerships and competitive moats
Key company-level dynamics reflect a bifurcated landscape where established pharmaceutical companies, agile biotechnology firms, academic spinouts and specialized contract development and manufacturing organizations each play distinct roles. Large pharmas continue to leverage deep regulatory experience and commercial infrastructure to advance combination regimens and broaden indications for immuno-oncology assets, while smaller biotech innovators drive platform-level breakthroughs in areas such as engineered cytokines, neoantigen vaccines and cell-engineering technologies. Academic institutions and research hospitals act as early adopters and incubators for proof-of-concept work, often catalyzing spinouts that attract venture and strategic capital.
Meanwhile, CDMOs and technology providers scale capabilities in GMP manufacturing, automation and supply chain services, enabling companies with limited in-house capacity to pursue clinical expansion. Across these participants, collaboration models increasingly blend licensing, co-development and equity alliances to share risk and accelerate access to complementary capabilities. Strategic focus areas for incumbent and emerging players include manufacturing scalability, biomarker-driven patient selection, and integrated evidence generation plans that align registrational objectives with payer expectations.
Practical strategic moves for industry leaders to bolster manufacturing resilience, integrate biomarker strategies, and align evidence generation with payer expectations
Actionable recommendations prioritize immediate operational adjustments alongside medium-term strategic investments to preserve optionality and accelerate value capture. First, leaders should prioritize manufacturing resilience by diversifying qualified suppliers, investing in process intensification, and validating regional manufacturing partners to mitigate tariff and logistics risk. Second, integrating biomarker strategies early within clinical development will de-risk registrational pathways and enhance payer conversations; this includes embedding longitudinal sampling, advanced immune profiling and pragmatic endpoints that demonstrate durable benefit.
Third, to sustain competitive differentiation, companies should pursue platform synergies-combining cellular engineering, optimized delivery systems, and next-generation checkpoint modulation-to create modular product families that scale across indications. Fourth, commercial teams must align evidence generation with value-based contracting expectations by designing real-world evidence capture plans and health economic modeling in parallel with late-stage trials. Finally, leaders should cultivate multidisciplinary partnerships with academic centers and CDMOs to accelerate translational pipelines while controlling capital intensity, thereby ensuring programs remain robust to policy and supply chain disruptions.
A description of the mixed-method research approach, expert validation steps, and analytic frameworks that underpin the immuno-oncology insights and recommendations
This research combines structured primary engagement with rigorous secondary synthesis to ensure findings reflect both contemporary practice and validated expert judgement. Primary research comprised interviews with clinical investigators, manufacturing experts, payer advisors and industry executives to gather nuanced perspectives on development bottlenecks and commercial barriers. Secondary research drew on peer-reviewed literature, clinical trial registries, regulatory guidance documents and patent filings to map technological trajectories and regulatory precedents. Data points underwent triangulation across multiple sources to validate conclusions and minimize bias.
Analytical methods included qualitative thematic analysis of expert inputs, cross-sectional mapping of clinical pipelines by modality and indication, and operational assessment of manufacturing and supply chain constraints. Risk scenarios were developed to stress-test assumptions around policy shifts, supply disruptions and clinical readouts. Findings were reviewed and refined through iterative expert validation rounds to ensure recommendations remain practical, defensible and actionable for decision-makers across scientific, operational and commercial functions.
A concise forward-looking synthesis underscoring the necessity of aligning scientific innovation with operational readiness and payer-focused evidence generation
In conclusion, immuno-oncology’s maturation now demands strategies that integrate scientific innovation with operational discipline and payer-aware evidence generation. Technological advances in cell engineering, neoantigen targeting and immunomodulation have expanded the therapeutic toolkit, but sustainable success depends on addressing manufacturing scale, supply chain resilience and differentiated clinical evidence. Geopolitical and policy shifts add another layer of complexity that will favor organizations that proactively localize capabilities and diversify sourcing.
Moving forward, leaders who align early-stage scientific development with pragmatic commercialization planning will secure the clearest path to durable impact. Cross-sector partnerships, modular platform development and robust biomarker integration will underpin the next wave of clinically meaningful and commercially viable immuno-oncology therapies. By executing with agility and foresight, stakeholders can translate scientific promise into meaningful patient benefit and long-term organizational value.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
188 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. Integration of next-generation bispecific T-cell engagers to improve tumor targeting and reduce off-target toxicity
- 5.2. Expansion of personalized neoantigen vaccine pipelines leveraging AI-driven epitope prediction for solid tumors
- 5.3. Advancement of CAR-NK therapies incorporating gene edits to overcome tumor microenvironment immunosuppression
- 5.4. Adoption of real-world evidence and digital biomarkers to measure immunotherapy response and patient stratification at scale
- 5.5. Emergence of microbiome-modulating adjuvants to enhance checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in resistant cancer subtypes
- 5.6. Development of dual-targeting ADC conjugates combining immune checkpoint blockade with tumor-specific cytotoxic payloads
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Immuno-Oncology Market, by Therapy Type
- 8.1. Cancer Vaccines
- 8.2. Cell Therapy
- 8.2.1. CAR-T Therapy
- 8.2.1.1. Allogeneic
- 8.2.1.2. Autologous
- 8.2.2. NK Cell Therapy
- 8.2.3. TCR-T Therapy
- 8.3. Checkpoint Inhibitors
- 8.3.1. CTLA-4 Inhibitors
- 8.3.2. PD-1 Inhibitors
- 8.3.3. PD-L1 Inhibitors
- 8.4. Cytokines
- 8.5. Oncolytic Viruses
- 9. Immuno-Oncology Market, by Indication
- 9.1. Breast Cancer
- 9.1.1. Her2-Positive Breast Cancer
- 9.1.2. Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 9.2. Colorectal Cancer
- 9.3. Lung Cancer
- 9.3.1. Nsclc
- 9.3.2. Small Cell Lung Cancer
- 9.4. Lymphoma
- 9.5. Melanoma
- 9.5.1. Cutaneous Melanoma
- 9.5.2. Uveal Melanoma
- 10. Immuno-Oncology Market, by Line Of Therapy
- 10.1. First Line
- 10.2. Fourth Line Or Beyond
- 10.3. Second Line
- 10.4. Third Line
- 11. Immuno-Oncology Market, by End User
- 11.1. Academic Institutes
- 11.2. Cancer Research Institutes
- 11.3. Clinics
- 11.4. Hospitals
- 12. Immuno-Oncology Market, by Region
- 12.1. Americas
- 12.1.1. North America
- 12.1.2. Latin America
- 12.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 12.2.1. Europe
- 12.2.2. Middle East
- 12.2.3. Africa
- 12.3. Asia-Pacific
- 13. Immuno-Oncology Market, by Group
- 13.1. ASEAN
- 13.2. GCC
- 13.3. European Union
- 13.4. BRICS
- 13.5. G7
- 13.6. NATO
- 14. Immuno-Oncology Market, by Country
- 14.1. United States
- 14.2. Canada
- 14.3. Mexico
- 14.4. Brazil
- 14.5. United Kingdom
- 14.6. Germany
- 14.7. France
- 14.8. Russia
- 14.9. Italy
- 14.10. Spain
- 14.11. China
- 14.12. India
- 14.13. Japan
- 14.14. Australia
- 14.15. South Korea
- 15. Competitive Landscape
- 15.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 15.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 15.3. Competitive Analysis
- 15.3.1. Agenus Inc.
- 15.3.2. Allogene Therapeutics, Inc.
- 15.3.3. Amgen Inc.
- 15.3.4. AstraZeneca PLC
- 15.3.5. Autolus Limited
- 15.3.6. BeiGene, Ltd.
- 15.3.7. BioNTech SE
- 15.3.8. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
- 15.3.9. Celgene Corporation
- 15.3.10. Eli Lilly and Company
- 15.3.11. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
- 15.3.12. GlaxoSmithKline plc
- 15.3.13. Immutep Ltd.
- 15.3.14. Johnson & Johnson
- 15.3.15. Juno Therapeutics, Inc.
- 15.3.16. Legend Biotech Corporation
- 15.3.17. Merck & Co., Inc.
- 15.3.18. Moderna, Inc.
- 15.3.19. Novartis AG
- 15.3.20. Pfizer Inc.
- 15.3.21. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- 15.3.22. Roche Holding AG
- 15.3.23. Sanofi S.A.
- 15.3.24. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited
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.
