When you look at the cellular I-O landscape, IOVA probably has the most comparable technology to that of MRKR. IOVA is using non engineered TILs. IOVA has very impressive 40%+ CRs in cervical cancer and melanoma. The disadvantage to TIL treatment is a biopsy is necessary, which is often easy for melanoma with subcutaneous metastases however this can be problematic for other cancers requiring major surgery. MRKR uses a simple blood draw. Also, lymphodepleting preconditioning is standard with TIL treatment, which increases toxicity. Expense is also much greater than MRKR's treatment which uses TAAs in the pep mix that are shared between tumor types. There is no significant toxicity associated with MRKRs treatment.
MRKR's MC is ~400m vs 3B for IOVA. A comparable SP to IOVA for MRKR would be $68.
We know MRKR has impressive data for hematologic malignancies with durable responses. The missing piece here is whether we will see clear evidence of activity in solid tumors similar to that of IOVA. IOVA is targeting immunotherapy responsive tumors, at least to anti-PD1, whereas we will be seeing data in pancreatic cancer which has been PD1 resistant. It's therefore unlikely we'll see CR rates of 40% but any solid sign of response would be very bullish, especially when coupled with the data from hematologic malignancy. The low coast and absence of toxicity would facilitate rapid approval IMO even with a much more modest response rate than IOVA's.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
