Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Legend surges on early data for ‘in vivo’ lymphoma cell therapy

Dive Brief: An experimental cancer cell therapy developed by Legend Biotech helped reduce or eliminate signs of disease in people with lymphoma enrolled in a clinical trial, sparking hopes the “in vivo” medicine might compete with personalized, marketed treatm

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

Dive Brief:

  • An experimental cancer cell therapy developed by Legend Biotech helped reduce or eliminate signs of disease in people with lymphoma enrolled in a clinical trial, sparking hopes the “in vivo” medicine might compete with personalized, marketed treatments like Novartis’ Kymriah, the company said Tuesday .
  • At the higher of the two dose levels tested so far, all six people treated with the therapy, LB2501, responded. Five had no evidence of lymphoma lesions, according to trial details released ahead of a medical meeting .
  • Legend is one of many companies seeking to develop therapies that fight cancer by reprogramming immune cells inside the body. If successful, these therapies would sidestep an extensive, “ex vivo” process that involves extracting cells and modifying them in a lab.

Dive Insight:

Legend’s shares jumped 30% Tuesday following the news. Multiple Wall Street analysts praised the data, with RBC Capital Markets’ Leonid Timashev noting that a successful “in vivo” product could record blockbuster sales while “ex vivo” counterparts face “logistical bottlenecks” that limit their commercial potential. Legend is already a prominent cell therapy player, having successfully developed the personalized multiple myeloma treatment Carvykti that it now sells with Johnson & Johnson. It’s now turning to “in vivo” work, an area that’s seen an explosion in venture investments as well as a string of recent drugmaker acquisitions . With LB2501, Legend uses a modified virus to deliver into immune cells instructions to find and attack cells expressing the proteins CD19 and CD20. Those proteins are found on the surface of malignant B cells and are known targets in lymphoma. Importantly, the treatment doesn’t require a chemotherapy step to prepare the body for treatment, as other cell therapies do. The data being reported at the European Hematology Association meeting this month comes from a first-in-human trial conducted in China that’s testing LB2501 in people whose disease had progressed after at least two lines of treatment. An abstract posted ahead of that meeting involves results in 12 patients with large B cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma or mantle cell lymphoma who received one of two tested doses. No responses were observed at the lower dose, even though there was evidence of activity in five of the six recipients. At the higher dose, though, remissions — defined as a reduction or elimination of lymphoma lesions — were registered in all six recipients. Five had “complete” responses, Legend said. Eight of the enrollees had an immune response called cytokine release syndrome that is often seen with cell therapies, but only one needed an intervention beyond basic symptomatic treatments for fever, pain or nausea. No patients had an immune response that affected the brain or nerves, another side effect associated with ex vivo cell therapies. In his note, Timashev wrote further data, such as a six-month follow-up, will be necessary to see how Legend’s therapy stacks up against others, such as an experimental treatment from Lyell Immunopharma . But the news is nonetheless “exciting both for their clinical value of the product, and strategically, because it puts forth a credible second act for [Legend] beyond Carvykti.”

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01China: Threat or opportunity?

One of the biggest biotech news stories of recent years is China’s continued rise as a biotech and life sciences powerhouse. China conducts a quarter of all clinical trials and drug development and has almost 1,500 new drugs in development.¹ Many China-based biotechs have benefitted from government funds, out-licencing deals with large pharmas and venture capital funding. However, policymakers in the US and EU have concerns about the possible threat to their region’s biosecurity and competitiveness as centres for health and life science research. Given China’s increased importance, ICON Biotech conducted the same biotech sector survey with 100 China-based biotech leaders. The results show that Chinese biotechs face many of the same challenges as biotechs located elsewhere. They share the same funding challenges and burdens associated with increasingly complex clinical trials and regulations.

Source: www.biopharmadive.com ↗
02What Comes Next

With data expected in the fourth quarter of 2026, we are prioritizing histology alongside patient-reported outcomes using the Celiac Disease Symptom Diary, one of only two instruments developed in line with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance, to capture changes in symptoms such as abdominal pain and nausea. Ultimately, the broader aim is to give gastroenterologists and patients a therapeutic option for a disease that has long been managed without one. The future of drug development will not be defined by statistical significance alone, but by whether new therapies also improve the daily burden of living with celiac disease. “The first therapy to cross the line could change the field,” Geller concluded. “It would help establish celiac as a serious medical condition with options beyond a restrictive diet and open the door for what comes next.” Dr. Paul Lizzul is chief medical officer at First Tracks Biotherapeutics, a clinical ‑ stage biotechnology company advancing antibody therapeutics that modulate immune pathways implicated in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Marilyn Geller serves as an advisor to First Tracks Bio. Footnotes Abadie V, Jabri B. IL-15: a central regulator of celiac disease immunopathology. Immunol Rev . 2014;260(1):221-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/imr.12191. Yokoyama S, Watanabe N, Sato N, et al. Antibody-mediated blockade of IL-15 reverses the autoimmune intestinal damage in transgenic mice that overexpress IL-15 in enterocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A . 2009;106(37):15849-15854. https://doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0908834106. Anthony S, Schluns KS. Emerging roles for IL-15 in the activation and function of T-cells during immune stimulation. Research and Reports in Biology . 2015;6:25-37. https://doi.org/10.2147/RRB.S57685.

Source: www.biopharmadive.com ↗
03Lifestyle Matters: How do environmental and lifestyle factors influence Alzheimer’s disease?

Dr. Harrison and Finnish neuroscientist Dr. Miia Kivipelto explore the complex interplay between genetics and lifestyle in Alzheimer's development. Learn how the groundbreaking FINGER study demonstrates potential prevention strategies, and discover the latest evidence on how environmental factors, diet, and chronic conditions influence Alzheimer's risk.

Source: www.biopharmadive.com ↗
04How Real Brain Cells Respond to Artificial Neurons

Holla, who completed her PhD in Raman’s lab and is now a postdoctoral researcher studying memory at New York University in New York City, designed and ran experiments in mouse cerebellar slices. She positioned a stimulation electrode on the parallel fibers, the main pathway that excites Purkinje cells, and a recording electrode on the Purkinje cells themselves. She played recordings of the artificial neurons’ waveforms into the tissue through a standard stimulation electrode at four different speeds: 7, 60, 218, and 740 spikes per second. At every speed below 200 spikes per second, the Purkinje cells fired in response. The strongest results came at 60 spikes per second, where each artificial spike lasted 0.7 milliseconds, which is fast enough to trigger the cell but brief enough to avoid flooding the tissue with unnecessary current. Above 200 spikes per second, the cells stopped responding. They simply cannot fire that fast. The team included the 740-spikes-per-second condition on purpose to directly challenge the many engineering groups building artificial neurons that operate at those speeds. “We had to show them [740 spikes] wasn’t sufficient,” Brown said. “You can’t work that fast.” “You can see the living neurons respond to our artificial neuron,” Hersam said. But he is careful to note a caveat: The printed artificial neurons were not touching the brain tissue. The waveforms they generated were recorded and then played back into the slice through standard laboratory stimulation equipment. The next step is to prove the printed device itself can interface with living tissue.

Source: www.medscape.com ↗
05Why Muscle Cells Might Do Some Heavy Lifting

Brown was studying gene therapy in the 1990s when he designed a technology to turn mRNA expression on or off in different cells. For the new mouse study, published in Nature Biotechnology , he adapted the technology to turn off mRNA expression in dendritic cells, muscle cells, or liver cells. The researchers then vaccinated the mice with each version, delivering the vaccines both intravenously and intramuscularly. “The results were pretty stunning,” Brown said. When mRNA expression was turned off in muscle cells, T-cell response went down, suggesting muscle cells play a role in immunity. When expression was turned off in liver cells, T-cell expression tripled — indicating liver cells dampen immunity. Turning off expression in dendritic cells had no effect on T-cell activation, though it did reduce the number of killer T cells by as much as half. (Interestingly, no such reduction occurred when the antigen was SARS-CoV-2 spike. Brown is now investigating why different antigens had varying effects.) Knowing all this is crucial for designing effective mRNA vaccines and therapies. That’s because different mRNA therapies require different strategies. Cancer vaccines must boost tumor-fighting killer (CD8+) T cells. For genetic disease treatments, scientists want to avoid triggering the immune system to prevent killing the very cells the mRNA is meant to modify. “Understanding the immunology is extremely important for this class of drug,” Brown said. The finding doesn’t mean dendritic cells aren’t important for mRNA vaccines to work. “It just means that the mRNA doesn’t have to get into those cells to induce an immune response,” Brown said. Instead, the antigen can be transferred to those dendritic cells.

Source: www.medscape.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →