After a positive phase III trial, it is evident that treatment with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) is a safe, feasible, and effective treatment modality for patients with metastatic melanoma. Further, the treatment is safe and feasible in diverse solid tumors, regardless of the histologic type. Still, TIL treatment has not obtained the regulatory approvals to be implemented on a larger scale. Therefore, its availability is currently restricted to a few centers worldwide. In this review, we present the current knowledge of TIL therapy and discuss the practical, logistic, and economic challenges associated with implementing TIL therapy on a larger scale. Finally, we suggest strategies to facilitate the widespread implementation of TIL therapy and approaches to develop the next generation of TILs.

In the late 1980s, almost a decade before the discovery of immune checkpoints, Rosenberg and colleagues showed promising results of adoptive cell therapy (ACT) with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) for patients with metastatic melanoma (1). These early promising results were confirmed with a clinical trial published in 1994, but most clinical responses were only transient (2). In three consecutive studies with optimized cell preparation and extensive lymphodepletion, response rates reached 49% to 72% (3–5), including several durable complete responses. Over the last 30 years, several hundred patients with melanoma were treated in TIL-based ACT (TIL therapy) clinical trials (6), including a recent phase III (7). With long-term follow-up, there is clear evidence of long-lasting complete responses (3). Efforts for protocol modifications toward improved access and commercialization have been ongoing for almost a decade. In addition, TIL therapy is now expanding to other solid tumor types, however, with mixed outcomes.

Despite the apparent antitumor potential and high efficacy rates in melanoma, TIL therapy has not yet reached regulatory approval. Moreover, with the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors as standard treatment options, TIL therapy trials have moved to later treatment lines. Still, there is an unmet need for effective therapies for most patients with metastatic melanoma (8, 9). Recently, TIL therapy has demonstrated activity also in the post–PD-1 setting in phase II and III trials (7, 10, 11). Hence, this treatment is expected to enter the mainstream of cancer care shortly (12).

This review presents an overview of the current status of TIL therapy for melanomas and other solid cancers. In addition, we discuss the toxicity, regulatory and practical barriers, and possible approaches for the larger-scale clinical application of TIL therapy.

Melanoma

Since the first preliminary studies performed by the group of Steven Rosenberg (1, 2), several phase I and II TIL therapy studies for patients with melanoma have been conducted. Table 1 summarizes the most epoch-making studies within the last 30 years. These studies illustrated that clinical responses could be obtained despite applying different lymphodepleting regimens, IL2 doses, or number of infused cells. However, the melanoma treatment landscape has changed remarkably in the past decade. The most significant achievement has been the approval and large-scale introduction of CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors as a standard, first-line treatment for patients with metastatic melanoma.

Table 1.

Selected TIL studies in metastatic melanoma.

Author/yearPhaseLymphodepletionIL2TILsResponse criteriaPatients included (n)CRPRORR
Rosenberg 1988 (1No HD REP TILs WHO 20 10 55% 
Rosenberg 1994 (2Partly HD REP TILs WHO 86 24 34% 
Dudley 2005 (38Yes HD REP TILs WHO 35 15 51% 
Rosenberg 2011 (3NA Yes ± TBI HD REP TILs RECIST 1.0 93 20 32 56% 
Ellebaek 2012 (37I/II Yes LD REP TILs RECIST 1.0 33% 
Andersen 2016 (36I/II Yes Decrescendo REP TILs RECIST 1.0 24 42% 
Goff 2016 (60NA Yes ± TBI HD REP TILs RECIST 1.1 101 24 30 54% 
Rohaan 2022 (7III Yes HD REP TILs RECIST 1.1 84 (of 168) randomly assigned to TIL therapy 17 24 49% 
Author/yearPhaseLymphodepletionIL2TILsResponse criteriaPatients included (n)CRPRORR
Rosenberg 1988 (1No HD REP TILs WHO 20 10 55% 
Rosenberg 1994 (2Partly HD REP TILs WHO 86 24 34% 
Dudley 2005 (38Yes HD REP TILs WHO 35 15 51% 
Rosenberg 2011 (3NA Yes ± TBI HD REP TILs RECIST 1.0 93 20 32 56% 
Ellebaek 2012 (37I/II Yes LD REP TILs RECIST 1.0 33% 
Andersen 2016 (36I/II Yes Decrescendo REP TILs RECIST 1.0 24 42% 
Goff 2016 (60NA Yes ± TBI HD REP TILs RECIST 1.1 101 24 30 54% 
Rohaan 2022 (7III Yes HD REP TILs RECIST 1.1 84 (of 168) randomly assigned to TIL therapy 17 24 49% 

Abbreviations: TBI, total body irradiation; HD, high dose; LD, low dose; TILs, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; ORR, overall response rate.

Consequently, ACT trials with TILs have primarily been conducted in second- or later-line treatment during the last decade. Therefore, it was an obvious concern that tumors with resistance to PD-1 inhibition might also be resistant to TIL therapy. However, studies conducted in the post-CPI era still showed similar (7, 11) or lower but still significant (10, 13) response rates compared with those obtained before the widespread use of CTLA-4- and PD-1 inhibitors. Notably, Sarnaik and colleagues (11) showed convincing efficacy of centrally manufactured TIL therapy in patients with unresectable stage III to IV melanoma. In total, 66 heavily pretreated patients received TIL therapy followed by high-dose IL2 (600,000 IE/Kg) for up to 6 doses. An objective response rate of 36% was reported, with 2 (3%) complete responses and 22 (33%) partial responses (11). In addition, in a recently conducted multicenter, randomized phase III trial (7), we compared TIL therapy followed by high-dose IL2 (600,000 IE/Kg) to standard treatment with ipilimumab in a post–PD-1 setting (86% previously treated with anti–PD-1). In total, 168 patients were randomized to TIL therapy or four cycles of ipilimumab at a standard dose of 3 mg/kg. TIL therapy was superior to ipilimumab, with a significantly improved progression-free survival of 7.2 months compared with 3.1 months, respectively. In addition, complete responses were observed in 20% of TIL-treated patients compared with 7.1% of ipilimumab-treated patients (7).

Metastatic non-skin melanomas represent a significant therapeutic challenge. New therapies provided modest improvements, and thus there is a high unmet need for improved treatment options in mucosal (14) and uveal melanomas (15). With only little effect of CPI treatment, it has been speculated that metastases from uveal melanoma have poor immunogenic potential (16). Nevertheless, TILs can be successfully expanded from uveal melanoma metastases, and encouraging results of TIL therapy have been reported by Chandran and colleagues. In a cohort of 20 patients, an objective response rate of 35% was reported (17). Even though responses appeared less frequent and durable compared with cutaneous melanoma, TIL therapy represents a possible future treatment option for this hard-to-treat disease.

Nonmelanoma solid tumors

A high intratumoral T-cell infiltrate is a good prognostic factor predicting longer disease-free survival (after surgical resection of the primary tumor) and/or better overall survival in most tumor types studied to date (18). These findings suggest a potential for TIL therapy in several solid tumors. However, robust results in nonmelanoma cancer types are still awaited (19). To date, the most promising results beyond melanoma have been observed in patients with HPV-associated malignancies (20) and non–small cell lung cancer (21) and, more recently, in breast cancer (22). Selected published studies within the last two decades are listed in Table 2. With an overall response rate ranging from 8% to 24% in these studies, objective response rates appear lower in nonmelanoma cancers. It is still unclear why response rates are higher in melanoma. However, melanoma has a very high average mutational burden (23) and extensive T-cell infiltration (24). Notably, most CD8+ TILs in human tumor infiltrates are not cancer antigen-specific (25, 26). However, the proportion of bystander TILs in melanoma may be lower than in other cancer types, regardless of resistance to anti–PD-1 (26). Overall, these findings explain the lower success of TIL therapy in nonmelanoma cancer types, suggesting that future research should focus on strategies to rescue the few tumor-reactive TILs.

Table 2.

Selected TIL studies in nonmelanoma solid tumors.

Author/YearPhaseHistologyLymphodepletionIL2TreatmentResponse criteriaPatients included (n)CRPRORR
Stevanovic 2019 (20II HPV-associated epithelial cancers Yes HD TILs RECIST 1.0 29 24% 
Creelan 2021 (21Non–small cell lung cancer Yes Decrescendo Nivolumab × 4 and if PD: TILs + Nivolumab × 1 year RECIST 1.1 13 23% 
Kverneland 2021 (19I/II 13 different histologic types, including nonepithelial cancer, most being C. coli and choroidal melanoma Yes LD Ipilimumab (pre-TIL infusion) TILs Nivolumab × 4 post TIL infusion RECIST 1.1 25 8% 
Zacharakis 2022 (22II Breast cancer Yes HD Neoantigen reactive TILs + Pembrolizumab × 1 pre-TIL infusion and Pembrolizumab × 3 post-TIL infusion RECIST 1.0 50% 
Author/YearPhaseHistologyLymphodepletionIL2TreatmentResponse criteriaPatients included (n)CRPRORR
Stevanovic 2019 (20II HPV-associated epithelial cancers Yes HD TILs RECIST 1.0 29 24% 
Creelan 2021 (21Non–small cell lung cancer Yes Decrescendo Nivolumab × 4 and if PD: TILs + Nivolumab × 1 year RECIST 1.1 13 23% 
Kverneland 2021 (19I/II 13 different histologic types, including nonepithelial cancer, most being C. coli and choroidal melanoma Yes LD Ipilimumab (pre-TIL infusion) TILs Nivolumab × 4 post TIL infusion RECIST 1.1 25 8% 
Zacharakis 2022 (22II Breast cancer Yes HD Neoantigen reactive TILs + Pembrolizumab × 1 pre-TIL infusion and Pembrolizumab × 3 post-TIL infusion RECIST 1.0 50% 

Abbreviations: HD, high dose; LD, low dose; TILs, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; ORR, overall response rate.

New approaches to improve responses in nonmelanoma solid tumors are under development. The identification and selective expansion of TILs targeting specific mutated tumor antigens (or neoantigens) is an area of growing interest. Tumor neoantigens can be identified by whole-genome sequencing, and neoantigen-specific T cells can be isolated and expanded for infusion (27). Early promising results have been reported by Tran and colleagues in gastrointestinal cancers through the successful expansion of TILs targeting KRAS and ERBB2IP (28, 29). Similarly, neoantigen-specific TILs can be expanded from breast cancer, leading to clinical responses when infused with anti–PD-1 antibodies (22). A potential strategy to target a shared but highly tumor-specific antigen is based on the selective expansion of TILs naturally reactive against p53 mutations. Although feasible and safe, convincing clinical results with this strategy are still awaited (30). As listed in Supplementary Table S1, multiple clinical trials investigating TIL therapy in nonmelanoma solid tumors, focusing on various approaches to increase the efficacy of TIL therapy, are ongoing. In particular, the combination of TIL therapy and CPI is highly promising and is currently under investigation in several clinical studies (NCT03645928, NCT01174121, NCT05681780, NCT03449108, NCT04611126, and NCT03108495). Recent preliminary results from the trials NCT03108495 and NCT03645928 (TIL therapy combined with anti–PD-1) indicated an overall response rate of 43% in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas and 57% in cervical cancer (31). Another interesting approach is the generation of T cells genetically engineered to express neoantigen-specific TCRs. In a newly published case report, TCR therapy targeting mutant KRASG12D induced a partial response in a patient with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (32). Similarly, in a patient with breast cancer, TILs genetically engineered to express a p53 neoantigen-specific TCR resulted in a partial response lasting 6 months (30). Therefore, further research in TCR therapy is needed to elucidate the potential of this treatment as a possible strategy to overcome the challenges of T-cell therapy in nonmelanoma solid tumors. In conclusion, even though the efficacy and durability of TIL therapy in most nonmelanoma tumors are still not comparable with the results obtained in melanoma, promising and innovative strategies warrant further development.

TIL production is a good manufacturing practice (GMP) compliant, ex vivo expansion process based on the surgical resection of tumor tissue from the patient. Metastases available with minimally invasive surgery, such as lymph node metastases or subcutaneous tumors, are preferred, but the generation of TILs has been successful regardless of the site of the resected metastasis (33). The tumor tissue is enzymatically digested or mechanically fragmented. Individual tumor fragments are typically cultured in IL2-containing media. Over 2 to 6 weeks, the lymphocytes will migrate into the culture media and outgrow any competing cells. Minimally expanded, or "Young" TILs are massively expanded, usually within a standard, 14-day rapid expansion protocol (REP), using anti-CD3, irradiated feeder cells (of autologous or allogeneic origin), and high doses of IL2. To retain a continuous availability of oxygen and a sufficient removal of waste products, bioreactors or gas-permeable vessels can be used during the REP (34, 35). Lastly, the expanded TILs are harvested, washed, and tested before release and administration to lymphodepleted patients. In classic TIL therapy protocols, the administration of TILs is followed by the infusion of high-dose bolus IL2 (HD IL2) every 8th hour, but the administration of low-dose or decrescendo IL2 regimens has also been tested with moderate success (36, 37). Although variations across TIL manufacturing and administration centers can be observed, a common pathway is outlined in Fig. 1.

Figure 1.

The common pathway for TIL manufacturing and administration. The resected tumor is transported to the GMP facility for mechanical fragmentation or enzymatic digestion. From the tissue, young TILs are grown over a period of 2–5 weeks, then the cells are expanded rapidly in the presence of OKT3, HD IL2, and irradiated PBMCs. After testing quality and safety, the final infusion product is released and administered to the lymphodepleted patient, followed by infusions of HD IL2 every 8th hour for up to 5 days. (Adapted from an image created with BioRender.com.)

Figure 1.

The common pathway for TIL manufacturing and administration. The resected tumor is transported to the GMP facility for mechanical fragmentation or enzymatic digestion. From the tissue, young TILs are grown over a period of 2–5 weeks, then the cells are expanded rapidly in the presence of OKT3, HD IL2, and irradiated PBMCs. After testing quality and safety, the final infusion product is released and administered to the lymphodepleted patient, followed by infusions of HD IL2 every 8th hour for up to 5 days. (Adapted from an image created with BioRender.com.)

Close modal

Side effects from TIL therapy have mainly been attributed to chemotherapy or IL2, leading to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) in virtually all patients treated. Conditioning chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (60 mg/kg) and fludarabine phosphate (25 mg/m2) results in reversible pancytopenia with the need for repeated transfusions with red blood cells (RBC) and thrombocytes in most patients, whereas neutropenia puts the patients in high risk of infection (38). The reconstitution of the immune system after lymphodepleting chemotherapy has been evaluated by Kverneland and colleagues (39) in a cohort of melanoma and nonmelanoma patients receiving TIL therapy and low-dose IL2. In this study, the median duration of neutropenia was 6 days when granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered. However, a considerable proportion of the patients (26%) suffered from recurring neutropenia (grades 3–4) for 2 to 3 months after discharge. In another study, the duration of neutropenia tended to be slightly higher in patients receiving HD IL2 (40). The reported median duration of grade 3–4 lymphopenia has been reported to be 18 days, but it is speculated to be even longer for most patients (39). Thus, the lymphodepleting regimen induces significant immunologic subtype alterations for several months following treatment. However, TIL therapy has not been associated with a clinically significant prolonged infectious risk post-TIL infusion.

As illustrated in Fig. 2A, acute toxicities from HD IL2 can affect almost every organ. The most frequently reported toxicities are electrolyte derangement, hypotension, fluid retention, fever, and dyspnea, but these TRAEs are transient and respond to standard interventions. Bolus infusion of IL2 is continued for up to 15 cycles or until dose-limiting toxicity, which, in the majority of cases, limits HD IL2 treatment to a few days. So far, no clear correlation between the number of IL2 doses and objective tumor response has been reported. Given the deleterious role of IL2 via induction of regulatory T cells (41), these data suggest the potential for a more conservative IL2 dosing strategy to reduce the toxicity of the treatment. The central management strategies and stopping rules for treatment with HD IL2 are outlined in Table 3. At the time of discharge, all toxicities from IL2 treatment have resolved or are reduced to grade 1 or 2 (42).

Figure 2.

Toxicity related to different types of immunotherapy. A, Side effects from treatment with high-dose IL2 can affect almost every organ system. Upon treatment, almost all patients will experience dose-limiting toxicity leading to treatment discontinuation. B, Graphic illustration of onset, frequency, and resolution of TRAEs related to TIL therapy and treatment with checkpoint inhibitors, respectively. TRAE, treatment-related adverse event. Curves are hand drawn. Data do not necessarily correspond to results from clinical trials. (Adapted from an image created with BioRender.com.)

Figure 2.

Toxicity related to different types of immunotherapy. A, Side effects from treatment with high-dose IL2 can affect almost every organ system. Upon treatment, almost all patients will experience dose-limiting toxicity leading to treatment discontinuation. B, Graphic illustration of onset, frequency, and resolution of TRAEs related to TIL therapy and treatment with checkpoint inhibitors, respectively. TRAE, treatment-related adverse event. Curves are hand drawn. Data do not necessarily correspond to results from clinical trials. (Adapted from an image created with BioRender.com.)

Close modal
Table 3.

Management and stopping criteria of acute side effects from high-dose IL2a.

Organ systemSymptomsManagementAbsolute stopping criteria
Cardiovascular Tachycardia Hypotension: liquid therapy Sustained sinus tachycardia (>130 bpm) 
 Hypotension  Atrial fibrillation 
   Supraventricular tachycardia 
   Ventricular arrhythmia 
   Elevated heart enzymes (troponins) 
   Ischemia on ECG 
   BP systolic < 80 mmHg 
Skin Rash, pruritus Lotion, topical steroids, antihistamines Moist desquamation 
Gastrointestinal Diarrhea Loperamide Diarrhea, ≥2 L per 8 hours 
   Vomiting, where antiemetics have no effect 
   Severe abdominal pain 
Infection — Antibiotics IV Evidence or strong clinical suspicion of sepsis 
Coagulation Petechiae Ecchymosis Bleedings Phytomenadion IV Severe hemoptysis, hematemesis, rectal bleeding, or melena 
Musculoskeletal Edema Diuretics Weight gain > 15% 
   Sensory disturbances in the extremities 
Neurologic Vivid dreams Steroids upon vital indication Hallucinations 
 Emotional instability  Persistent crying 
   Changes in mental state that do not improve within 2 hours 
   Fails the serial 7s test 
   Disoriented 
Lungs Dyspnea - If normotensive: diuretics + oxygen 15 L/minute > 4 L O2/minute required to maintain a saturation of > 95% 
  - If hypotensive: oxygen 15 L/minute, arterial gas analysis, consider mechanical ventilation Crepitations over ½ of the lung field 
   Indication for overpressure ventilation or respiratory treatment 
   Indication for thoracentesis 
Kidneys Anuria - Urine production < 30 mL/hour and normotensive: intravenous diuretics Urine production < 10 mL/hour 
  - Urine production < 30 mL/hour and hypotension: extensive liquid therapy Creatinine > 250 μmol/L 
Organ systemSymptomsManagementAbsolute stopping criteria
Cardiovascular Tachycardia Hypotension: liquid therapy Sustained sinus tachycardia (>130 bpm) 
 Hypotension  Atrial fibrillation 
   Supraventricular tachycardia 
   Ventricular arrhythmia 
   Elevated heart enzymes (troponins) 
   Ischemia on ECG 
   BP systolic < 80 mmHg 
Skin Rash, pruritus Lotion, topical steroids, antihistamines Moist desquamation 
Gastrointestinal Diarrhea Loperamide Diarrhea, ≥2 L per 8 hours 
   Vomiting, where antiemetics have no effect 
   Severe abdominal pain 
Infection — Antibiotics IV Evidence or strong clinical suspicion of sepsis 
Coagulation Petechiae Ecchymosis Bleedings Phytomenadion IV Severe hemoptysis, hematemesis, rectal bleeding, or melena 
Musculoskeletal Edema Diuretics Weight gain > 15% 
   Sensory disturbances in the extremities 
Neurologic Vivid dreams Steroids upon vital indication Hallucinations 
 Emotional instability  Persistent crying 
   Changes in mental state that do not improve within 2 hours 
   Fails the serial 7s test 
   Disoriented 
Lungs Dyspnea - If normotensive: diuretics + oxygen 15 L/minute > 4 L O2/minute required to maintain a saturation of > 95% 
  - If hypotensive: oxygen 15 L/minute, arterial gas analysis, consider mechanical ventilation Crepitations over ½ of the lung field 
   Indication for overpressure ventilation or respiratory treatment 
   Indication for thoracentesis 
Kidneys Anuria - Urine production < 30 mL/hour and normotensive: intravenous diuretics Urine production < 10 mL/hour 
  - Urine production < 30 mL/hour and hypotension: extensive liquid therapy Creatinine > 250 μmol/L 

aEven though side effects from IL2 are numerous and often severe, they are transient and respond to standard interventions.

As illustrated in Fig. 2B, there is a noteworthy difference in the onset and resolution of TRAE related to TIL therapy and CPI. TRAEs can potentially affect a patient's self-reported quality of life (QoL), but understanding this interaction is complex. Although it is evident that severe and acute TRAEs are burdensome, former studies have suggested that CTCAE scoring might fail to capture mild but chronic toxicities, which can substantially affect QoL, especially when these toxicities are long-lasting or interfere with daily activities (43). Nevertheless, recent data showed that patients treated with TILs scored significantly higher on global health-related QoL 6 months posttreatment than ipilimumab-treated patients (7). Therefore, these differences in patient-reported QoL must be considered when comparing the treatment modalities.

The evidence around TIL therapy generated to date fuels the debate of whether it is prime time to implement TIL therapy as a standard of care for patients with metastatic melanoma. However, TIL manufacturing and administration is logistically complicated, practically demanding, and regulatory challenging. Experiences from the approval of CAR-T therapy confirm that these barriers can complicate and procrastinate the successful implementation of advanced therapies (44).

We discuss the most significant barriers to implementation.

Regulatory aspects

No commercial TIL products have yet been licensed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The regulatory pathway for nonprofit academic developers of TIL manufacturing is presently unexplored. In the European Union (EU), hematologic stem cell products for transplantation have been manufactured and managed by hospitals in the EU under EU Tissue and Cells Directive (45). Nevertheless, academic TIL therapy is facing a regulatory mountain to climb. Political awareness of this barrier for academic sponsors developing advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) led EMA to launch a pilot initiative to support the translation of ATMPs (46). Importantly, for this initiative to succeed, regulatory flexibility is required.

In the United States, the increasing awareness of the regulatory and practical challenges associated with the implementation and approval of advanced therapies fueled the interest of the FDA. A recently published draft guidance contains CAR-T cell–specific recommendations on chemistry, manufacturing and control, pharmacology and toxicology, and clinical study design (47). This guidance will hopefully facilitate further implementation of CAR-T therapies and serve as a template for implementing TIL therapy. With an increasing interest in personalized therapies, such as TIL therapy, the application of the pharmaceutical concept of potency assays can represent a significant regulatory challenge due to the individualized nature of the TIL products, including but not limited to variability in targeted antigens and other functional characteristics as reviewed by Hulen and colleagues (48).

Practical aspects

TIL manufacturing requires highly specialized GMP-controlled processes necessitating certified clean rooms, validated robust procedures, and qualified technical personnel. In addition, current treatment protocols are complex and require experience with in-patient administration of high-dose IL2. Therefore, local TIL production and infusion of TILs are currently restricted to a few centers across advanced countries, and a strategy for a more widespread application of TIL therapy is needed. This opens the discussion of centralized manufacturing of TILs as compared with on-site (point-of-care) and whether administration of TILs should be restricted to a few specialized cancer centers or be implemented on a large scale in mid-size cancer centers.

Centralized vs. point-of-care manufacturing

Centralized manufacturing facilities fit commercial strategies very well. Centralized manufacturing ensures a uniform, streamlined, consistent process, easier quality control, and transparency in evaluating regulatory requirements. This would further ensure that all patients are treated according to the same standards as with current models of commercial CAR-T therapy. However, centralized manufacturing requires complex logistics with a high level of coordination between surgical (tumor removal), manufacturing (TIL isolation and expansion), and treatment (patient admission and TIL administration) centers. In addition, all products are delivered—at best—within several hours from release or cryopreserved. Cryopreservation adds manufacturing complexity; however, it was demonstrated feasible in a phase II study (11).

On-site manufacturing fits nicely in an academic setting, but while large comprehensive institutions have the theoretical and physical framework to implement a GMP-approved manufacturing facility, few centers have the required economic and logistical resources. Thus, establishing academic manufacturing facilities demands local fundraising for start-up funding and a laborious organizational effort, including personnel training and establishment of local (small) teams with advanced expertise. On the other hand, an obvious advantage of point-of-care manufacturing is the direct pathway from the laboratory to the administration of the final cell product without the need for cryopreservation and long-distance transportation. Further, point-of-care manufacturing would allow for greater flexibility within the production, with an opportunity to accommodate patient-specific needs. Significantly, point-of-care manufacturing would facilitate continuous research across academic institutions in a highly collaborative fashion.

Centralized vs. semi-large-scale administration of TILs

The current setup of TIL therapy is remarkably specialized, with high-dose chemotherapy and HD IL2 requiring trained medical personnel and quick access to intensive care assistance. Further, the treatment administration is logistically complex, requiring coordination between the manufacturing laboratory (centralized or on-site) and the clinic. Consequently, even though numerous patients could benefit from the treatment, access to TIL therapy has so far been reserved for very few patients within clinical trials worldwide. Centralizing TIL administration on highly specialized, reference cancer centers would maintain this unequal access to therapy since time, and traveling costs would possibly prevent many patients from receiving the therapy. Thus, discrimination based on socioeconomic and geographical factors will be maintained. CAR-T therapy faced similar challenges when approved by the FDA in the past decade, but still, today, it is believed that the geographical accessibility of the treatment limits its widespread use (44).

An appealing compromise is a semi-large-scale implementation, making TIL therapy available for a broader population at specialized mid-sized oncology centers. Once established, this strategy would ensure access to TIL therapy for more patients regardless of socioeconomic factors and, to some degree, place of residence. Nevertheless, the administration of TIL therapy at mid-size centers would demand that patient flow is continuous, or involved teams and facilities capable of adjusting to fluctuating demands. Most likely, such an approach will prove cost-effective via collaboration with centralized manufacturing facilities, which might facilitate reliable TIL production.

Table 4 summarizes the characteristics of centralized versus point-of-care manufacturing and centralized versus semi-large-scale administration of TIL therapy.

Table 4.

Characteristics of centralized vs. point-of-care manufacturing and centralized vs. (semi) large-scale administration of TIL therapy.

Centralized versus point-of-care manufacturing of TIL therapy
CentralizedPoint-of-care
Product manufacturing Homogeneous processing Individual processes, heterogeneity across centers 
 Uniform quality control Differences in local regulatory requirements 
 Cost-efficient (large scale) High degree of flexibility 
 Complex logistics and coordination with treatment centers No need for cryopreservation 
 Cryopreservation required  
Facility establishment One-time large expenditure Requires start-up funding with local fundraising 
 One site for training of personnel Establishment of local teams with advanced expertise required 
 Establishment of large-scale expertise Significant staff training, recruitment, and retention challenges 
Development/research Focus on commercialization (within industrial development) Requires collaboration between centers and external expertise 
Centralized versus (semi) large-scale administration of TIL therapy 
 Centralized (Semi) Large-scale 
Treatment availability Complex patient transportation and logistics Available for a broader population 
  Establishment of local teams with advanced expertise required 
  Significant staff training, recruitment, and retention challenges 
Centralized versus point-of-care manufacturing of TIL therapy
CentralizedPoint-of-care
Product manufacturing Homogeneous processing Individual processes, heterogeneity across centers 
 Uniform quality control Differences in local regulatory requirements 
 Cost-efficient (large scale) High degree of flexibility 
 Complex logistics and coordination with treatment centers No need for cryopreservation 
 Cryopreservation required  
Facility establishment One-time large expenditure Requires start-up funding with local fundraising 
 One site for training of personnel Establishment of local teams with advanced expertise required 
 Establishment of large-scale expertise Significant staff training, recruitment, and retention challenges 
Development/research Focus on commercialization (within industrial development) Requires collaboration between centers and external expertise 
Centralized versus (semi) large-scale administration of TIL therapy 
 Centralized (Semi) Large-scale 
Treatment availability Complex patient transportation and logistics Available for a broader population 
  Establishment of local teams with advanced expertise required 
  Significant staff training, recruitment, and retention challenges 

Economic aspects

When implementing TIL therapy, economic aspects must be considered. The one-off expense of establishing GMP facilities is significant, but once implemented, the cost per product will be relatively modest compared with the per-patient acquisition of commercial products. Trained personnel, including sufficient numbers of technicians, quality assurance (QA), and certified qualified persons (QP), will also be a prerequisite. At the National Center for Cancer Immune Therapy of Denmark (CCIT-DK), we have estimated direct expenses on "academic" TIL therapy (including production and hospitalization) to be roughly $110,000 compared with $160,000 for drug expenses only for four cycles of ipilimumab (standard list price for an average 80 kg North American) as outpatient therapy (49). Because expenses for diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune TRAEs related to CPI are challenging to estimate, it is expected that TIL therapy could be, at least, comparable with ipilimumab costs. However, it is still unclear what the final costs of TIL therapy will be. Although an academic nonprofit setting may help reduce the financial burden, commercial actors may be necessary for widespread implementation. Final costs have been a barrier to CAR-T therapy's implementation and widespread application, and TIL therapy could face similar challenges. Nevertheless, initiatives to lower the cost of CAR-T therapy, and especially strategies to move the treatment to the outpatient setting, can help reduce final costs (50, 51).

Heterogeneous national and regional reimbursement systems may contain additional in-build obstacles for the implementation of TIL therapy and advanced cell therapies in general. Restrictions on reimbursement represent a significant barrier to CAR-T therapy access in the United States (52). These challenges should be considered while preparing for the implementation of TIL therapy. Despite repeated revisions of the reimbursement strategy covering CAR-T therapy in the Medicare program, the current model still results in substantial losses for providers, leaving hospitals with an economic deficit (51). No standard reimbursement strategy exists for the nonmedicare population covered by commercial insurance companies (51). Alternative reimbursement strategies are being explored, but no ideal method has yet been found (44). Also, in Europe, the reimbursement of CAR-T costs has been a challenge, supporting the need for streamlined reimbursement schemes across highly heterogeneous national/regional-specific systems (53, 54).

Still, studies evaluating the cost–benefit of TILs versus standard care and strategies facilitating manufacturing, administration, and reimbursement are needed to make TIL therapy attractive from a health economic perspective.

So far, treatment with autologous TILs has been reserved for patients included in clinical trials with narrow eligibility criteria. Thus, TIL therapy has been offered to younger patients (age ≤ 75 years) with no significant comorbidities and a good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0–1. Also, clinically significant or unstable brain metastases have excluded patients from participating in TIL trials.

A potential setting of application will be for metastatic disease in patients with metastatic melanoma who progressed on or after anti–PD-1-based immunotherapy (second- or later-line treatment).

However, in recent years anti–PD-1 antibodies were introduced in the adjuvant setting, and still a considerable fraction of the patients relapse, the majority within the first 12 months of treatment (55). So far, there is no clear guidance on managing these patients, and possible strategies include combination therapy with CTLA-4 and PD1 inhibitors, monotherapy with CLTA-4 or PD1 inhibitors, or BRAF/MEK inhibitors for patients with BRAF mutations. With no consensus in the field and demonstrated efficacy of TILs in the post–PD-1 setting (7, 10, 11, 13), TIL therapy can be a reasonable first-line treatment for patients with metastatic melanoma who received and progressed on or after adjuvant therapy with anti–PD-1.

Emerging evidence supports the efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable but clinically evident (e.g., palpable) disease. The OpACIN trial was the first to show a potential benefit of neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition, with high rates of complete pathologic responses (56, 57). In addition, in a newly conducted randomized phase II trial testing adjuvant versus neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab in patients with stage IIIB–IV melanoma, a significantly higher event-free survival was found in the neoadjuvant cohort (58). With these findings, it is evident that the timing of the treatment significantly affects the outcome, and it is disputable what will be the role of adjuvant anti–PD-1 in resectable, clinically evident stage IIIB–IV melanoma. This area requires further research, but it is a nearby thought that TIL therapy could become a first-line treatment option for patients relapsing after neoadjuvant therapy.

TIL therapy proved effective in patients with CPI-resistant metastatic melanoma. In addition, early promising results support the application of TIL therapy in nonmelanoma cancer types. In the near future, studies to support large-scale implementation in melanoma, the application of TIL therapy in other cancer types, and strategies to optimize and improve TIL manufacturing and therapy are highly warranted.

The widespread implementation of TIL therapy in melanoma is challenging, requiring substantial logistic, regulatory, and economic efforts. To ensure fast access to this potentially life-saving treatment, we recommend implementing tailored approaches to the distinct national and regional healthcare systems, with large-scale administration of TIL therapy in mid-size centers through centralized manufacturing in some countries or regions. In other locations where GMP capability is already established at reference oncological centers, point-of-care manufacturing plus centralized administration may be adopted. Regulatory requirements can be addressed via fast-track, ad-hoc authorization based on hospital exemption schemes or, in the long run, centralized regulatory approval by agencies such as EMA or FDA. Health economics aspects should be addressed in the context of local insurance or national healthcare reimbursement policies.

Development of platforms to further improve TIL therapy is under way. Although approaches to reduce toxicities, streamline the treatment process, and improve the efficacy of classic TIL therapy with combinations are highly valuable, most current efforts are directed at improving the quality of TIL products. Although there is no clear consensus on how to identify the most potent TIL subpopulations, most approaches rely on TIL selection followed by selective expansion (reviewed in Granhøj and colleagues, ref. 59). Alternative approaches for potency improvement are the use of gene modification for arming TILs with genes coding for cytokines or receptors or knocking out checkpoints (reviewed in Hulen and colleagues; ref. 48). Obviously, the use of these strategies would add further complexity to the manufacturing and regulatory processes.

Overall, although "classic" TIL therapy has demonstrated efficacy in melanoma, improved next-generation approaches may secure the extension of efficacy to other cancer types where classic approaches did not prove highly effective (19).

In summary, as classic TIL therapy is about to enter the mainstream of clinical care for melanoma, there is a need for further research and political prioritizing to make the treatment available to a broader population of patients. Strategies to improve treatment efficacy and its extension to other indications are ongoing.

T.H. Borch reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. I.M. Svane reports grants from BMS, Adaptimmune, IO Biotech, Lytix Biopharma, Enara Bio, and TILT Biotherapeutics and personal fees from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and TILT Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. M. Donia reports other support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Genetech and personal fees from Achilles Therapeutics during the conduct of the study; in addition, M. Donia has a patent for WO2013167136A1 issued. No disclosures were reported by the other author.

Anders Kverneland and Christopher Aled Chamberlain, National Center for Cancer Immune Therapy (CCIT-DK), are acknowledged for useful scientific discussions.

Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

1.
Rosenberg
SA
,
Packard
BS
,
Aebersold
PM
,
Solomon
D
,
Topalian
SL
,
Toy
ST
, et al
.
Use of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and interleukin-2 in the immunotherapy of patients with metastatic melanoma: a preliminary report
.
N Engl J Med
1988
;
319
:
1676
80
.
2.
Rosenberg
SA
,
Yannelli
JR
,
Yang
JC
,
Topalian
SL
,
Schwartzentruber
DJ
,
Weber
JS
, et al
.
Treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma with autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and interleukin 2
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1994
;
86
:
1159
66
.
3.
Rosenberg
SA
,
Yang
JC
,
Sherry
RM
,
Kammula
US
,
Hughes
MS
,
Phan
GQ
, et al
.
Durable complete responses in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic melanoma using T-cell transfer immunotherapy
.
Clin Cancer Res
2011
;
17
:
4550
7
.
4.
Rosenberg
SA
,
Dudley
ME
.
Adoptive cell therapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma
.
Curr Opin Immunol
2009
;
21
:
233
40
.
5.
Dudley
ME
,
Yang
JC
,
Sherry
R
,
Hughes
MS
,
Royal
R
,
Kammula
U
, et al
.
Adoptive cell therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: Evaluation of intensive myeloablative chemoradiation preparative regimens
.
J Clin Oncol
2008
;
26
:
5233
9
.
6.
Dafni
U
,
Michielin
O
,
Lluesma
SM
,
Tsourti
Z
,
Polydoropoulou
V
,
Karlis
D
, et al
.
Efficacy of adoptive therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and recombinant interleukin-2 in advanced cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Ann Oncol
2019
;
30
:
1902
13
.
7.
Rohaan
MW
,
Borch
TH
,
Kessels
R
,
Foppen
MHG
,
Nuijen
B
,
Nijenhuis
C
, et al
.
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy or ipilimumab in advanced melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2022
;
2113
25
.
8.
Larkin
J
,
Chiarion-Sileni
V
,
Gonzalez
R
,
Grob
J-J
,
Rutkowski
P
,
Lao
CD
, et al
.
Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2019
;
381
:
1535
46
.
9.
Robert
C
,
Grob
JJ
,
Stroyakovskiy
D
,
Karaszewska
B
,
Hauschild
A
,
Levchenko
E
, et al
.
Five-year outcomes with dabrafenib plus trametinib in metastatic melanoma
.
N Engl J Med
2019
;
381
:
626
36
.
10.
Seitter
SJ
,
Sherry
RM
,
Yang
JC
,
Robbins
PF
,
Shindorf
ML
,
Copeland
AR
, et al
.
Impact of prior treatment on the efficacy of adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with metastatic melanoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2021
;
27
:
5289
98
.
11.
Sarnaik
AA
,
Hamid
O
,
Khushalani
NI
,
Lewis
KD
,
Medina
T
,
Kluger
HM
, et al
.
Lifileucel, a tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy, in metastatic melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2021
;
39
:
2656
66
.
12.
Coukos
G
.
TIL therapy entering the mainstream
.
N Engl J Med
2022
;
387
:
2185
6
.
13.
Andersen
R
,
Borch
TH
,
Draghi
A
,
Gokuldass
A
,
Rana
AHM
,
Pedersen
M
, et al
.
T cells isolated from patients with checkpoint inhibitor-resistant melanoma are functional and can mediate tumor regression
.
Ann Oncol
2018
;
29
:
1575
81
.
14.
Mori
T
,
Izumi
T
,
Doi
R
,
Kamimura
A
,
Takai
S
,
Teramoto
Y
, et al
.
Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapy for advanced acral and mucosal melanoma
.
Exp Dermatol
2023
;
32
:
276
89
.
15.
Bol
KF
,
Ellebaek
E
,
Hoejberg
L
,
Bagger
MM
,
Larsen
MS
,
Klausen
TW
, et al
.
Real-world impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic uveal melanoma
.
Cancers (Basel)
2019
;
11
:
1
11
.
16.
Masaoutis
C
,
Kokkali
S
,
Theocharis
S
.
Immunotherapy in uveal melanoma : novel strategies and opportunities for personalized treatment
.
Expert Opin Investig Drugs
2021
;
30
:
555
69
.
17.
Chandran
SS
,
Somerville
RPT
,
Yang
JC
,
Sherry
RM
,
Klebanoff
CA
,
Goff
SL
, et al
.
Treatment of metastatic uveal melanoma with adoptive transfer of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes: a single-centre, two-stage, single-arm, phase 2 study
.
Lancet Oncol
2017
;
18
:
792
802
.
18.
Fridman
WH
,
Pagès
F
,
Sautès-Fridman
C
,
Galon
J
.
The immune contexture in human tumours: impact on clinical outcome
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2012
;
12
:
298
306
.
19.
Kverneland
AH
,
Chamberlain
CA
,
Borch
TH
,
Nielsen
M
,
Mørk
SK
,
Kjeldsen
JW
, et al
.
Adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes supported by checkpoint inhibition across multiple solid cancer types
.
J Immunother Cancer
2021
;
9
:
1
11
.
20.
Stevanovic
S
,
Helman
SR
,
Wunderlich
JR
,
Langhan
MM
,
Doran
SL
,
Kwong
MLM
, et al
.
A phase II study of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy for human papillomavirus–associated epithelial cancers
.
Clin Cancer Res
2019
;
25
:
1486
93
.
21.
Creelan
BC
,
Wang
C
,
Teer
JK
,
Toloza
EM
,
Yao
J
,
Kim
S
, et al
.
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte treatment for anti-PD-1-resistant metastatic lung cancer: a phase 1 trial
.
Nat Med
2021
;
27
:
1410
8
.
22.
Zacharakis
N
,
Huq
LM
,
Seitter
SJ
,
Kim
SP
,
Gartner
JJ
,
Sindiri
S
, et al
.
Breast cancers are immunogenic: immunologic analyses and a phase II pilot clinical trial using mutation-reactive autologous lymphocytes
.
J Clin Oncol
2022
;
40
:
1741
54
.
23.
Alexandrov
LB
,
Nik-Zainal
S
,
Wedge
DC
,
Aparicio
SAJR
,
Behjati
S
,
Biankin
AV
, et al
.
Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer
.
Nature
2013
;
500
:
415
21
.
24.
Danaher
P
,
Warren
S
,
Lu
R
,
Samayoa
J
,
Sullivan
A
,
Pekker
I
, et al
.
Pan-cancer adaptive immune resistance as defined by the tumor inflammation signature (TIS): results from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)
.
J Immunother Cancer
2018
;
6
:
1
17
.
25.
Simoni
Y
,
Becht
E
,
Fehlings
M
,
Loh
CY
,
Koo
SL
,
Teng
KWW
, et al
.
Bystander CD8+ T cells are abundant and phenotypically distinct in human tumour infiltrates
.
Nature
2018
;
557
:
575
9
.
26.
Gokuldass
A
,
Draghi
A
,
Papp
K
,
Borch
TH
,
Nielsen
M
,
Westergaard
MCW
, et al
.
Qualitative analysis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes across human tumor types reveals a higher proportion of bystander CD8+ T cells in non-melanoma cancers compared to melanoma
.
Cancers (Basel)
2020
;
12
:
1
15
.
27.
Bianchi
V
,
Harari
A
,
Coukos
G
.
Neoantigen-specific adoptive cell therapies for cancer: making T-cell products more personal
.
Front Immunol
2020
;
11
:
1
11
.
28.
Tran
E
,
Robbins
PF
,
Lu
Y-C
,
Prickett
TD
,
Gartner
JJ
,
Jia
L
, et al
.
T-cell transfer therapy targeting mutant KRAS in cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2017
;
375
:
2255
62
.
29.
Tran
E
,
Turcotte
S
,
Gros
A
,
Robbins
PF
,
Lu
Y
,
Mark
E
, et al
.
Cancer immunotherapy based on mutation-specific CD4+ T cells in a patient with epithelial cancer
.
Science
2019
;
344
:
641
5
.
30.
Kim
SP
,
Vale
NR
,
Zacharakis
N
,
Krishna
S
,
Yu
Z
,
Gasmi
B
, et al
.
Adoptive cellular therapy with autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and T-cell receptor- engineered T cells targeting common p53 neoantigens in human solid tumors
.
Cancer Immunol Res
2022
;
10
:
932
46
.
31.
O'Malley
D
,
Lee
SM
,
Psyrri
A
et al
.
Phase 2 efficacy and safety of autologous tumor-infiltratinglymphocyte (TIL) cell therapy in combination with pembrolizumab in immune checkpoint inhibitor-naïve patients with advanced cancers
.
Present 2021 SITC Annu Meet November 10–14
,
2021
;
Washington; DC Abstr
492
.
32.
Leidner
R
,
Sanjuan Silva
N
,
Huang
H
,
Sprott
D
,
Zheng
C
,
Shih
Y-P
, et al
.
Neoantigen T-cell receptor gene therapy in pancreatic cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2022
;
386
:
2112
9
.
33.
Besser
MJ
,
Shapira-Frommer
R
,
Treves
AJ
,
Zippel
D
,
Itzhaki
O
,
Hershkovitz
L
, et al
.
Clinical responses in a phase II study using adoptive transfer of short-term cultured tumor infiltration lymphocytes in metastatic melanoma patients
.
Clin Cancer Res
2010
;
16
:
2646
55
.
34.
Forget
MA
,
Haymaker
C
,
Dennison
JB
,
Toth
C
,
Maiti
S
,
Fulbright
OJ
, et al
.
The beneficial effects of a gas-permeable flask for expansion of Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as reflected in their mitochondrial function and respiration capacity
.
Oncoimmunology
2016
;
5
:
1
7
.
35.
Donia
M
,
Larsen
SM
,
Met
Ö
,
Svane
IM
.
Simplified protocol for clinical-grade tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte manufacturing with use of the Wave bioreactor
.
Cytotherapy
2014
;
16
:
1117
20
.
36.
Andersen
R
,
Donia
M
,
Ellebaek
E
,
Borch
TH
,
Kongsted
P
,
Iversen
TZ
, et al
.
Long-lasting complete responses in patients with metastatic melanoma after adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and an attenuated IL2 regimen
.
Clin Cancer Res
2016
;
22
:
3734
45
.
37.
Ellebaek
E
,
Iversen
TZ
,
Junker
N
,
Donia
M
,
Engell-Noerregaard
L
,
Met
O
, et al
.
Adoptive cell therapy with autologous tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and low-dose interleukin-2 in metastatic melanoma patients
.
J Transl Med
2012
;
10
:
169
.
38.
Dudley
ME
,
Wunderlich
JR
,
Yang
JC
,
Sherry
RM
,
Suzanne
L
,
Restifo
NP
, et al
.
Adoptive cell transfer therapy following non-myeloablative but lymphodepleting chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
2346
57
.
39.
Kverneland
AH
,
Borch
TH
,
Granhøj
J
,
Sengeløv
H
,
Donia
M
,
Svane
IM
.
Bone marrow toxicity and immune reconstitution in melanoma and non-melanoma solid cancer patients after non-myeloablative conditioning with chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibition
.
Cytotherapy
2021
;
23
:
724
9
.
40.
Dudley
ME
,
Wunderlich
JR
,
Yang
JC
,
Hwu
P
,
Schwartzentruber
DJ
,
Topalian
SL
, et al
.
A phase I study of nonmyeloablative chemotherapy and adoptive transfer of autologous tumor antigen-specific T lymphocytes in patients with metastatic melanoma
.
J Immunother
2002
;
25
:
243
51
.
41.
Yao
X
,
Ahmadzadeh
M
,
Lu
YC
,
Liewehr
DJ
,
Dudley
ME
,
Liu
F
, et al
.
Levels of peripheral CD4+FoxP3+ regulatory T cells are negatively associated with clinical response to adoptive immunotherapy of human cancer
.
Blood
2012
;
119
:
5688
96
.
42.
Borch
TH
,
Andersen
R
,
Ellebaek
E
,
Met
Ö
,
Donia
M
,
Marie Svane
I. Future role for adoptive T-cell therapy in checkpoint inhibitor-resistant metastatic melanoma
.
J Immunother Cancer
2020
;
8
:
1
7
.
43.
Thanarajasingam
G
,
Atherton
PJ
,
Novotny
PJ
,
Loprinzi
CL
,
Sloan
JA
,
Grothey
A
.
A novel approach of longitudinal adverse event evaluation in oncology clinical trials: the toxicity over time (ToxT) analysis of clinical trials N9741 and 979254 (Alliance)
.
Lancet Oncol
2016
;
17
:
663
70
.
44.
Gajra
A
,
Zalenski
A
,
Sannareddy
A
,
Jeune-Smith
Y
,
Kapinos
K
,
Kansagra
A
.
Barriers to chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies in clinical practice
.
Pharm Med
2022
;
36
:
163
71
.
45.
European Commission
.
Tissues and cells
. [
cited 2023 Jan 23
].
Available from:
https://health.ec.europa.eu/blood-tissues-cells-and-organs/tissues-and-cells_en
46.
European Medicines Agency
.
EMA pilot offers enhanced support to academic and non-profit developers of advanced therapy medicinal products
.
29.09.2022
. [
cited 2023 Jan 23
].
Available from:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-pilot-offers-enhanced-support-academic-non-profit-developers-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products
47.
FDA
.
Considerations for the development of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell products
.
2022
.
Available from:
https://www.fda.gov/media/156896/download
48.
Hulen
TM
,
Chamberlain
CA
,
Svane
IM
,
Met
Ö
.
ACT Up TIL now: the evolution of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in adoptive cell therapy for the treatment of solid tumors
.
Immuno
2021
;
1
:
194
211
.
49.
Drugs.com.
Yervoy Prices, Coupons and Patient Assistance Programs
. [
cited 2023 Jan 23
].
Available from:
https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/yervoy
50.
Lyman
GH
,
Nguyen
A
,
Snyder
S
,
Gitlin
M
,
Chung
KC
.
Economic evaluation of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy by site of care among patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma
.
JAMA Netw Open
2020
;
3
:
1
15
.
51.
Buie
LW
.
Optimizing the value of CAR T-cell therapy: managed care considerations from recent clinical findings
.
Am J Manag Care
2021
;
27
:
S243
52
.
52.
Mikhael
J
,
Fowler
J
,
Shah
N
.
Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies: barriers and solutions to access
.
JCO Oncol Pract
2022
;
18
:
800
7
.
53.
Heine
R
,
Thielen
FW
,
Koopmanschap
M
,
Kersten
MJ
,
Einsele
H
,
Jaeger
U
, et al
.
Health economic aspects of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies for hematological cancers : present and future
.
HemaSphere
2021
;
5
:
e524
.
54.
Abou-El-Enein
M
,
Elsanhoury
A
,
Reinke
P
.
Overcoming challenges facing advanced therapies in the EU market
.
Cell Stem Cell
2016
;
19
:
293
7
.
55.
Owen
CN
,
Shoushtari
AN
,
Chauhan
D
,
Palmieri
DJ
,
Lee
B
,
Rohaan
MW
, et al
.
Management of early melanoma recurrence despite adjuvant anti-PD-1 antibody therapy
.
Ann Oncol
2020
;
31
:
1075
82
.
56.
Rozeman
EA
,
Menzies
AM
,
van Akkooi
ACJ
,
Adhikari
C
,
Bierman
C
,
van de Wiel
BA
, et al
.
Identification of the optimal combination dosing schedule of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma (OpACIN-neo): a multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled trial
.
Lancet Oncol
2019
;
20
:
948
60
.
57.
Blank
CU
,
Rozeman
EA
,
Fanchi
LF
,
Sikorska
K
,
van de Wiel
B
,
Kvistborg
P
, et al
.
Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma
.
Nat Med
2018
;
24
:
1655
61
.
58.
Patel
S
,
Othus
M
,
Prieto
V
,
Lowe
M
,
Buchbinder
E
,
Chen
Y
, et al
.
LBA6 Neoadjvuant versus adjuvant pembrolizumab for resected stage III-IV melanoma (SWOG S1801)
.
Ann Oncol
2022
;
33
(
suppl 7
):
S1408
.
59.
Granhøj
JS
,
WPJ
A
,
Presti
M
,
Met
Ö
,
Svane
IM
,
Donia
M
.
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for adoptive cell therapy: recent advances, challenges, and future directions
.
Expert Opin Biol Ther
2022
;
22
:
627
41
.
60.
Goff
SL
,
Dudley
ME
,
Citrin
DE
,
Somerville
RP
,
Wunderlich
JR
,
Danforth
DN
, et al
.
Randomized, prospective evaluation comparing intensity of lymphodepletion before adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for patients with metastatic melanoma
.
J Clin Oncol
2016
;
34
:
2389
97
.