Phacilitate’s Advanced Therapies Week often sets the tone for the year ahead. Bringing together industry stakeholders early in the calendar, the conference provides a snapshot of current progress and is an important opportunity to gauge where innovation and investment are heading next.
At this year’s meeting, the energy felt more positive, with renewed optimism about the future of cell and gene therapy. Among the topics generating the most excitement was in vivo gene editing as an emerging cell therapy modality.
Panel Spotlight: “We’ve Solved for Science, Now What?”
One of the most impactful sessions I attended was the panel discussion titled “We’ve Solved for Science, Now What?”, which brought together perspectives from across clinical development, investment, and company leadership. Panelists included Kristin Hege, Senior Vice President of Early Clinical Development at Bristol Myers Squibb; Miguel Forte, CEO and President of Kiji Therapeutics; Eric Sliozaki, Partner at Revelation Partners; and Susan Nichols, CEO of Propel BioSciences.
A key takeaway from the discussion was that while scientific innovation in cell and gene therapy has matured, the industry is now facing a new set of challenges: how to operationalize these breakthroughs, scale manufacturing, and deliver therapies more efficiently to patients. Panelists noted that companies have learned important lessons over the past decade, and planning for commercialization is happening much earlier in development than it once did.
With respect to in vivo editing, interest is high, particularly because of its potential to eliminate the need for lymphodepleting immunotherapy. At the same time, many questions remain. Recent acquisitions in this space by large pharmaceutical companies reflect not just excitement about the technology, but also the need to better understand and validate it. The acquisition of Orna Therapeutics by Eli Lilly was discussed as one example of how big pharma is stepping in to address these unknowns and advance the field.
The panel emphasized that in vivo editing won’t solve every challenge in cell therapy. Certain indications, such as BCMA- and CD19-targeted CAR T therapies, may eventually shift to in vivo strategies, but the broader expectation is that this modality will expand the therapeutic toolbox rather than replace existing strategies. Autologous ex vivo, allogeneic ex vivo, and in vivo editing approaches are likely to coexist, each addressing different clinical and operational needs.
For solid tumor indications in particular, continued optimization of ex vivo therapies is still needed to overcome the complexities of the tumor microenvironment, and these applications are unlikely to transition to in vivo approaches in the near term. Overall, progress in cell therapy will depend less on a single breakthrough modality and more on advancing each approach where it is best suited.
Across all modalities, improving patient access, reducing cost of goods, and educating medical practitioners will be priorities for broader adoption.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Allogeneic Cell Therapies
The conversation ended with a look at allogeneic therapies. Panelists acknowledged that while challenges remain, many of the early hurdles are being worked through, and the field is continuing to make progress despite lingering perceptions of complexity. Miguel Forte emphasized the importance of raw material optimization to improve consistency and scalability. Looking ahead, there’s a lot of interest in upcoming clinical trial readouts from allogeneic developers, including Caribou Biosciences, which should further strengthen confidence in this modality and help guide the next phase of development.
In the end, Advanced Therapies Week this year highlighted a simple truth: progress will come from steady, practical advances across every modality, and the field is moving into its next chapter with clearer direction and growing momentum.
