CAR T-Cell Therapy Market to Reach US$ 22.2 Billion By 2032
New Delhi, Feb. 07, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The global CAR T-cell therapy market valuation is poised to reach US$ 22.2 billion by 2032, with a CAGR of 30% during the forecast period from 2024 to 2032.
The global CAR T-cell therapy market is experiencing extraordinary demand, propelled by revolutionary results in treating certain blood cancers. As of 2022, more than 487,294 people were diagnosed with leukemia around the world. The boom was caused by three things: growing cancer rates, CAR-T's clinical success (it cures 80% of some leukemias), and the hundreds of CAR-T clinical trials being conducted around the world. CAR-T therapies have had the most success so far in targeting B-cell CD19 antigens (which is why Kymriah and Yescarta exist). However, researchers are hunting down a range of other antigens in a broad variety of cancers. In addition, they are also looking at how to treat solid tumors with CAR-T cells. There are still many hurdles to overcome. The cost — more than US$ 450,000 per treatment — limits accessibility, as does the complicatedness of their manufacture. Severe side effects like cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity are also serving as a solid barrier to market growth.
Download Free Sample Copy @
Increasing Adoption of Combinational Approaches
The demand for CAR T-cell therapy market is propelled primarily by the growing adoption of combinational approaches. The CAR-T therapy strategy has many hurdles to leap over like tumor resistance, limited cell function, and solid tumors being complicated. Combining other treatments with CAR-T helps to tackle cancer from multiple angles, improve the engineered immune cell's effectiveness, and manage side effects.
Here are some examples of promising combination therapies in the CAR T-cell therapy market. Today, oncologist are combining CAR-T cells with different checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) to fully unlock their anti-cancer activity. BiTEs as a bridge between the CAR-T cells and other immune cells increase the chances of killing a tumor. Cytokines like interleukin-2 (IL-2) boosts persistence in a CAR-T cell. Oncolytic viruses strategically infecting and destroying cancer cells attract other healthy cells towards it and prime the immune response. Lastly, targeted therapies disrupt certain cancer pathways to work synergistically with a CAR-T.
With more than 65% of ongoing clinical trials involving some kind of combination approach in place, these therapies have massive potential to deliver effective outcomes. For instance, studies show positive outcomes when integrating CAR-T with checkpoint inhibitors for lymphomas and solid tumors and there are synergistic effects when incorporating them for cytokine therapy. BiTEs might be the key to unlocking solid tumor outcomes. Preclinical studies suggest oncolytic viruses can also enhance CAR-T cell function.
Lymphoma Leads CAR T-Cell Therapy Market, Driven by Success in B-Cell Lymphomas
By indication, the CAR T-cell therapy market is segmented into leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma. Wherein, hematological cancers account for 9% of all new cancer cases in the US. Lymphoma is projected to be a major market segment, occupying more than 40% of the market share. The initial success of CAR-T therapies that targeted the CD19 antigen (which is highly expressed in many B-cell lymphomas) was a huge reason they are now being utilized to treat this type of cancer. These therapies were utilized for relapsed and refractory B-cell lymphomas and had amazing results, which led to them becoming so widely adopted. Lymphomas also have a more favorable environment for CAR-T therapies than solid tumors usually do.
Blood cancers are much easier for these cells to access, and their tumor microenvironment tends to be less immunosuppressive too. On top of all that, patients who relapse after chemotherapy or stem cell transplants usually don't respond well to those treatments the second time around. That is why there is such a high demand for the global CAR T-cell therapy market in this field; it is an alternative that works when other choices fail. This has caused clinical trials investigating CAR-T for different lymphoma subtypes to multiply rapidly as well. Kymriah, Tecartus, Yescarta, and Breyanzi are four types of CAR-T therapy that have already been approved by the FDA for specific B-cell lymphomas too — just another thing boosting their popularity and use.
Monotherapy Dominates CAR T-Cell Therapy Market, While Combination Therapies Gain Momentum
Based on the type of therapy, the CAR T-cell therapy market is further segmented into monotherapy and combination therapy. More than 80% of CARTs are autologous, with most being utilized as monotherapy. As a standalone treatment, CAR-T therapy was initially very successful. The promising results targeting CD19 in B-cell cancers prompted its development and regulatory approvals. Most of the currently FDA-approved CAR-T therapies - including Yescarta, Kymriah, and Breyanzi - were designed to be utilized as monotherapy. This reaffirms the usage of CAR-T as a lone treatment alternative. Furthermore, while investigation into combination therapies is quickening up, managing the potential complications of combining CAR-T with other treatments like checkpoint inhibitors remains at an early stage. Particularly since the focus on CAR-T for solid tumors — where combinations may be more significant — is still less developed than for blood cancers across the global market.
For instance, patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas usually show a significant response to commercial CAR-T monotherapies like Kymriah and Yescarta. In multiple myeloma, BCMA-targeted CAR-T therapies such as Abecma are also predominantly utilized as monotherapy after other lines of treatment have already been exhausted.
Key Players
Novartis AG
Bluebird Bio, Inc.
Cellectis
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Merck & Co., Inc.
Juno Therapeutics, Inc.
Celyad Oncology
Celgene Corporation
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.
Miltenyi Biotech
Intellia Therapeutics
Pfizer, Inc.
Autolus Therapeutics
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Kite Pharma Inc.)
Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc.
Caribou Biosciences, Inc.
Other Prominent Players
Key Segmentation:
By Indication
Leukemia
Lymphoma
Myeloma
By Source
Autologous
Allogenic
By Type of Therapy
Monotherapy
Combination therapy
By Product
ABECMA
Breyanzi
Carvykti
Kymriah
Tecartus
Yescarta
By Administration Setting
Inpatient
Outpatient
By Region
North America
Europe
Asia Pacific
Middle East & Africa (MEA)
South America
For more information about this report visit:
About Astute Analytica
Astute Analytica is a global analytics and advisory company which has built a solid reputation in a short period, thanks to the tangible outcomes we have delivered to our clients. We pride ourselves in generating unparalleled, in depth and uncannily accurate estimates and projections for our very demanding clients spread across different verticals. We have a long list of satisfied and repeat clients from a wide spectrum including technology, healthcare, chemicals, semiconductors, FMCG, and many more. These happy customers come to us from all across the Globe. They are able to make well calibrated decisions and leverage highly lucrative opportunities while surmounting the fierce challenges all because we analyze for them the complex business environment, segment wise existing and emerging possibilities, technology formations, growth estimates, and even the strategic choices available. In short, a complete package. All this is possible because we have a highly qualified, competent, and experienced team of professionals comprising of business analysts, economists, consultants, and technology experts. In our list of priorities, you-our patron-come at the top. You can be sure of best cost-effective, value-added package from us, should you decide to engage with us.
Contact Us:Astute AnalyticaPhone: +1-888 429 6757 (US Toll Free); +91-0120- 4483891 (Rest of the World)For Sales Enquiries: sales@astuteanalytica.comWebsite: https://www.astuteanalytica.com/ LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube
CONTACT: Contact Us: Astute Analytica Phone: +1-888 429 6757 (US Toll Free); +91-0120- 4483891 (Rest of the World) For Sales Enquiries: sales@astuteanalytica.com Website: https://www.astuteanalytica.com/
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump, Apple to Announce Fresh $100 Billion US Investment
President Donald Trump plans to announce that Apple Inc. will commit to spending another $100 billion on domestic manufacturing, the latest pledge by the tech giant to increase US production of its products as it seeks to avoid punishing tariffs on its flagship iPhones. The announcement at the White House on Wednesday includes a new manufacturing program designed to bring more of Apple's supply chain to the US, with an eye toward assembling additional critical components domestically, according to a White House official who detailed the announcement on the condition of anonymity. Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook is expected to attend the event. Bloomberg's Managing Editor for Global Consumer Tech Mark Gurman reports. (Source: Bloomberg)
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
How Smart Leaders Use Constraints to Drive Strategic Innovation
Recently, reports began circulating that Nvidia was developing a detuned version of its next-generation Blackwell chip for China. The new chip would be slower on paper, lower priced, and engineered to comply with U.S. export limits. This wasn't a retreat—it was a redesign. Rather than waiting for the wall to move, the company chose to build right up to the wall. Nvidia's decision captures something essential about leadership under pressure. When reality draws a hard line, the instinct is to negotiate for more room. Another quarter. Another budget cycle. Another exemption. The alternative is to treat the line itself as part of the brief. Nvidia's response is less about salvaging a market than about reframing the problem: take the rule, freeze it, and optimize around it faster than anyone else can respond. The limit becomes an input. The boundary becomes an edge to cut against. Most organizations don't work this way. Most teams treat constraints as temporary inconveniences. They lobby around them, litigate them, or wait them out. Yet the firms that keep outmaneuvering their peers treat constraint as a forcing function for clarity, speed, and differentiation. Leadership is difficult even in the best of times. And these aren't the best of times. Markets are unsettled, geopolitics shows up inside product roadmaps, and investors ask for discipline and outsized growth at the same time. Teams are stretched. Wanting more room is understandable. The task is to find clarity inside the room that actually exists. The Power of Constraints Psychologists and designers have long understood the power of limits. If you were asked to name as many white objects as you could, many of us would stop after five or six: clouds, snow, paper, teeth... But narrow the frame to white objects in the refrigerator and people's lists grow quickly: milk, eggs, yogurt, cauliflower, sour cream, leftover rice... The boundary doesn't reduce imagination; it directs attention and sharpens perception. Amazon's two‑pizza team rule was introduced as that kind of structural discipline. Teams were capped at the size that could be fed with two pizzas, not as a gimmick but as a principle. It was a deliberate constraint on group size that encouraged accountability, clear ownership, and speed. With a small enough team, there's little room for ambiguity. Decisions are made closer to the work. Apple, often discussed as a company of boundless ambition, operates with an unusual level of internal constraint. Consider the number of SKUs and the narrowness of the design language. With artificial intelligence, privacy is prioritized, on-device processing is preferred, and partnerships are introduced cautiously and selectively. A peculiar paradox now defines strategy work. Many leaders face too much of everything: too many tools, data, priorities, and meetings to align too many stakeholders. In that context, additional resources often slow the system down. The surface area of indecision expands, and momentum leaks away. Seen through that lens, Nvidia's move is instructive. Instead of lamenting what can't be built or sold, the question shifts to what must be built to win inside the boundary. Constraint ceases to be the bottleneck. It becomes the clarifier. Reacting to Constraints Most businesses face three kinds of constraints. There are imposed constraints: regulators, geopolitics, macro shocks, activist boards. Nvidia's China strategy sits here. The boundary is hard, public, and rarely negotiable on the timelines that matter to product and go‑to‑market teams. There are structural constraints: legacy tech stacks, capital availability, brittle supply chains, outdated incentive systems, operating‑model debt, and talent gaps. These constraints are rarely acknowledged because they feel like the water the organization swims in every day. But there are chosen constraints, too: limits leaders set deliberately to produce sharper strategy and faster execution. Amazon's team size rule and Apple's SKU discipline fall into this category. The distinction matters. An imposed constraint demands adaptation. A structural constraint demands redesign. A chosen constraint demands leadership. When it's no longer plausible that more is the answer, it becomes easier to see that less often can be. Operating Inside a Boundary Many companies have intricate criteria for funding projects and almost none for killing them. Under a constraint, the kill criteria are built into the brief from the outset. The team knows what would cause them to stop. That clarity accelerates learning. Of course, constraints amplify accountability only if it's obvious who holds the pen. If a project has five sponsors and ten reviewers, the constraint turns into politics. If it has one owner, it turns into progress. And make no mistake: the narrative matters. There's a psychological cost when constraint is framed as austerity. People feel punished and hide their ambitions. Framed as concentration, the same constraint invites professionalism rather than martyrdom. Trust builds when leaders say no to expansion, but then protect the teams working inside the smaller mandate. Constraints work best when people understand the game they're playing. Telling an organization to do more with less generates anxiety. Explaining where the line sits, why it exists, and how the team intends to win inside it generates focus. Budget becomes a design instrument when it's fixed early and defended. Teams turn time into a forcing function when they announce a release date before work begins. When Netflix decided to start developing its own content, it didn't launch into it with a sprawling studio and Game of Thrones budgets. It began with House of Cards, a show free of expensive CGI dragons. Still, the company had a focused, data‑informed thesis of what would appeal to its audience. Working inside limitations led to sharper choices and a stronger debut. Getting Started with Constraints Leadership under constraint tends to follow a recognizable sequence. The boundary conditions are frozen. The rule, the regulator, the budget, or the headcount is treated as an input rather than a grievance. The design brief then makes explicit what must be true to win inside that line, what has to ship, and what will be deliberately cut. Ownership is concentrated in a small, fast team rather than diluted across a large coalition. Decisions are time‑boxed so that momentum is protected. The constraint is narrated so the organization understands why the wall exists, what it's teaching, and how the team intends to win inside it. One initiative that truly matters can be selected and treated with the same clarity Nvidia is applying to its China strategy. The central constraint can be written in a single sentence—regulation, budget, timeline, talent, compute, attention—and held fixed. That constraint can then be translated into a specification: what has to be true to succeed inside it, and what will be cut. A small team can be appointed, given no more than sixty days, and asked to deliver something concrete rather than something perfect. To be sure, not every constraint produces clarity. Some are arbitrary, performative, or so severe that they starve the work rather than focus it. The task is to decide which boundaries are worth accepting, which must be redesigned, and which should be chosen on purpose—and to move faster once that difference is clear. The Deeper Challenge for Leaders In a zero-interest-rate environment, conversations tended to revolve around removing limits: more funding, more hiring, more time. All of that signaled ambition, yet it often spread attention thinner. But there's another way to view the game. A small, focused mission signals that the work matters and that the organization trusts the team to move with speed and clarity. Constraint, in this reading, isn't a penalty. It's a commitment to coherence. When leaders embrace constraint, they force prioritization. They grant permission to be decisive. They encourage a kind of moral clarity: this is the thing being built, for these people, at this moment. Everything else is noise. That clarity shows up in shorter feedback loops, in smaller teams making bigger calls, and in an organization that tells a consistent story about what matters. So the brief can be frozen. The timebox can be set. The constraint can be named. The final step is to help the team see that the work isn't about operating with less, but about discovering what's essential and executing against it with speed and care. The future won't be won by the company with the most room to run. It will be won by the companies that know how to find the wall and run up against it. To use it not as a limit, but as
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
China's ‘National Team' Perfects the Art of Dip Buying
The stock market is not the economy. This year, other factors, such as retail participation in the US and corporate governance reform in South Korea, are pushing markets to tease record highs despite aweak economic reality. In China, a key catalyst is the involvement of the so-called ' national team,' a group of institutional investors that buys index funds to stem market routs. The main players include Central Huijin Investment Ltd., a domestic unit of the sovereign fund China Investment Corp., China Securities Finance Corp. and the Social Security Fund.
