Suman Kumar Vodnala shared a post on LinkedIn:
“TL;DR: When “Novel” Just Means “Me-Too-Plus”
It’s becoming increasingly clear that a significant portion of oncology R&D capital is flowing into Phase 2/3 trials whose efficacy profiles closely mirror existing standards both clinically and in the eyes of regulators. This trend spans cell therapy, bispecific antibodies, ADCs, T-cell engagers, oncolytic platforms, RAS-pathway inhibitors, and LNP-based cytokine or oncolytic + checkpoint combinations. These programs often lean on combination backbones to rely on early separation of Kaplan-Meier curves yet fail to deliver meaningful gains in overall survival or durable remission.
See an example below of the emerging pattern in next-gen CAR-T trials with variable CR rates. The Early PFS advantages may look promising but simulated long-term survival curves suggest a real risk of efficacy convergence reproducing, not surpassing, the durability plateau of earlier benchmarks (Neelapu et al; 2023).
While this approach is scientifically grounded and pragmatically de-risked, it may unintentionally favor incremental mimicry over transformative innovation. The broader consequence? Capital continues to support what some might call “zombie biotechs” – companies that persist on narrative and incremental data, not real clinical progress.
We’re now seeing waves of layoffs, abandoned pipelines, and outright company closures not because innovation failed, but because it was never truly pursued.
This isn’t meant as criticism, but as an invitation to reflect:
What are your thoughts on this trend? And more importantly how can we, as an industry, encourage investment in truly differentiated science without sacrificing rigor or patient safety?”