I'm no medical expert but this seems to be just another CD19 CAR-T albeit with some upgrades. Even though they are treating patients who were relapse/refractory with 2nd gen CAR-T, just like MRKR, they still required CD19 expression as a criteria for enrollment. Multi-TAA does not require CD19 expression. This study also seems to still show some of the adverse events traditionally seen with CAR-T treatment. We all know where Multi-TAA stands here. One thing this specific CAR-T has over the early ones is the manufacturing time has been significantly reduced. Either way, it seems this is an attempt to improve on existing CAR-T which is fine but it seems to still be showing a few issues.
I expect Marker's lymphoma data to be similar to this study you posted. I believe the PI had a 40%CR rate so with the improvements that were made hopefully that can be increased. These are both small trials so more data is needed but everything is currently tracking in a positive direction.
Regardless, the fact still remains that most patients relapse after treatment with CAR-T. It's great to see the therapy advancing and there will always be competing therapies but I think there is plenty of room in the space for Marker to operate.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
