IO360° this year captured a field in transition — but also a field re-energized. Yes, the tone was pragmatic: the era of incremental checkpoint combinations has run its course. Yet beneath that realism lies a deeper conviction. Immuno-oncology is not a mature space awaiting consolidation — it remains a vast frontier still to be explored, refined, and invested in across basic research, translational science, and clinical development. This is the promise of “IO 2.0”: a next chapter built on 15 years of hard-won lessons but animated by the belief that immunotherapy remains a cornerstone of cancer therapy — and that biotech continues to be the engine of innovation driving future benefit for patients.

Across three days of discussions, spanning scientific leaders, investors, and business development executives, six significant themes surfaced most relevant for C-suite decision-making as organizations turn toward 2026 planning cycles.

1. The checkpoint era isn’t ending; it’s being outgrown

In a fireside chat moderated by Axel Hoos, Dr. Ira Mellman reflected on IO’s ups and downs and offered a clear forward-looking view: the biggest gains ahead are likely to come from moving beyond a singular focus on T-cell checkpoints. His vision emphasized emergent modalities with meaningful promise, particularly tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy and cancer vaccines.

The key nuance wasn’t “new is always better.” It was a hard-earned point about the last 15+ years: many approaches have been tried, but fewer have consistently demonstrated the kind of clinical impact that can reshape standards of care. TILs and vaccines, while they can be complicated and expensive, were framed as modalities with real potential to drive the next set of breakthroughs.

For executives, the strategic implication is straightforward: the differentiation bar has moved. The question is shifting from “how do we participate in IO?” to “what can we credibly deliver that changes outcomes, clinically and operationally?” Many of the most promising ideas now come with manufacturing, logistics, and cost realities that need to be part of the strategy from day one, not solved later.

2. Cell therapy is expanding across delivery, platforms, and indications

Cell therapy featured prominently throughout the event, offering a mix of clinical signal, novel delivery concepts, and platform-level discussions. Key clinical and technical highlights included:

  • A spotlight from Dr. Jedd Wolchok (this year’s Lifetime Achievement award winner) on intravesical-delivered CAR‑T targeting mesothelin‑MUC16 in bladder cancer.
  • Striking Phase 1 data for EsoBiotec’s in vivo CAR‑T targeting BCMA in myeloma (reported 100% ORR without lymphodepletion).
  • Additional preclinical CAR and TCR innovations that underscore how quickly the engineering landscape is moving.

The technical sessions transitioned deeper into “what next” questions for portfolio strategy. A panel led by Lumanity’s Michael Rice, SVP, Advanced Therapies, explored how iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cell) approaches could push the field toward the next level of sophistication and scalability.  What emerged was a candid acknowledgment that the iPSC/allogeneic space is undergoing a reset: while these platforms promise commercial scale and accessibility, first-generation therapies have yet to match the durable remissions achieved by autologous approaches, and investors and pharma have taken notice.

In response, the field is pivoting iPSC derived therapies towards non-malignant diseases. Leading iPSC developers, such as Sana Biotechnology and Century Therapeutics have prioritized their pipelines with iPSC derived beta cells that produce insulin for type1 diabetes. Fate Therapeutics and Century are pursuing autoimmune and inflammatory indications, where short-lived allogeneic cells may be well-suited to “reset” the immune system. Others, such as BlueRock/Bayer and prioritizing neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s Disease since the blood-brain-barrier provides some protection from the immune system. Meanwhile, next-generation engineering, hypoimmune strategies, cytokine secretion, checkpoint modulation, is advancing incrementally to address persistence and solid tumor efficacy.

The discussion surfaced the real strategic choices companies face:

  • Whether continued investment in CAR‑T in oncology is warranted given competitive intensity and rising standards.
  • How credible and quick cell therapy platforms can expand into autoimmune diseases.
  • The trade-offs among autologous, allogeneic, and in vivo approaches, each of which implies different risk profiles, timelines, and operational demands.

The key takeaway for leadership teams: “Cell therapy” is no longer a single category; it is fragmenting into distinct strategic lanes. Winning will increasingly depend on matching modality choice to your organizational strengths, manufacturing, development operations, speed, and commercial infrastructure, not just your scientific thesis.

3. Imaging biomarkers and endpoints are moving from “supporting role” to strategic lever

Multiple sessions highlighted advances in radiology and radiomics for IO development, along with a candid acknowledgment of challenges in implementation, standardization, and interpretation. Several approaches were discussed as particularly promising:

  • Novel PET tracers such as granzyme B imaging to better visualize immune activity.
  • AI-assisted prognostic segmentation to improve patient stratification.
  • Vol‑PACT assessment of tumor growth rate from CT scans as a potential alternative to RECIST-based PFS/EFS endpoints.

This matters because IO drug development often hinges on understanding response patterns that don’t always map cleanly to traditional metrics. Better imaging and analytic tools can improve early signal detection, refine trial design, and sharpen go/no-go decisions, provided teams invest in the operational and analytical backbone required to use them well.

For executives, the question is whether imaging strategy is treated as a scientific accessory or a genuine value-creation engine. The latter can accelerate decision-making and capital efficiency, two pressures that remain in front and center.

4. The modality landscape is broadening—rapidly

Beyond cell therapy, IO360° showcased a variety of novel mechanisms and modalities, including:

  • Granzyme B ADCs positioned as potentially less toxic than (and complementary to) cytotoxic ADCs.
  • Antisense platform approaches.
  • RIPTACs and other induced-proximity concepts.
  • Emerging biomarker and research assay platforms designed to improve translation.

The broader point: IO is no longer a narrowly defined space. It’s becoming a toolkit. That creates opportunity, but also increases the risk of portfolio sprawl. As the menu expands, the strategic discipline to say “no” becomes as valuable as the ability to place bold bets.

5. A 2026 dealmaking rebound may be coming, but the rules are changing

In the panel, What Makes a Smart Deal in IO? Navigating Capital, Competition, and Global Innovation, brought together voices from across the dealmaking landscape – venture, big pharma and biotech – to examine what defines a high-value transaction today. Moderated by Andrew Baum, Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer, Pfizer, the discussion featured perspectives from Lumanity’s Jeffrey M. Bockman, PhD, EVP, Oncology, Deepa Pakianathan, PhD, Managing Partner and CEO/Co-Founder, Delphi Ventures, Gayatri Varma, PhD, Executive Director and Head of Transactions, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Markus Werner, PhD, Head, Search & Evaluation, Oncology, Novartis, and Evan Zisholtz, JD, VP, Global Business Development, Immunai.

Investor and pharma BD perspectives were cautiously optimistic: many expect 2026 to bring more deal activity and improved biotech funding compared to the last several years. At the same time, there was a strong consensus that the industry is not “returning” to a prior state, it’s evolving into a new one.

Several changes were emphasized:

  • China’s rise as a major source of biotech innovation is reshaping global opportunity and competition.
  • Working with Chinese companies and assets will increasingly be necessary and can be an advantage if approached thoughtfully.
  • Deal structures may continue evolving to manage risk and valuation gaps, including increased use of MTAs (material transfer agreements) and CVRs (contingent value rights).
  • Faster cycle times and faster obsolescence mean companies may aim for bigger differentiation thresholds and become more cautious about early disclosure of novel targets.

For C‑suite leaders, the implication is not simply “do more deals.” It’s “modernize the partnering playbook,” in diligence, in structuring, and in competitive intelligence, so that your organization can move fast without taking unpriced risk. However, partnering strategy doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it must align with deeper scientific and architectural choices about how your pipeline was built

6. Multi-specifics vs mono-specifics: the next strategic fork in IO development

One of the meeting’s highlights was a debate between Dr. Michael Curran and Dr. Naiyer Rizvi, moderated by Dr. Dan Chen, centered on a pivotal architecture question: Should the future of Immuno-Oncology (IO) prioritize multi-specific agents or mono-specific agents used in combination?

A primary case study for this tension is the shift toward PD-(L)1 × VEGF bispecifics versus the continued advancement of anti-PD-(L)1 combinations with separate agents. The theme was picked up and elaborated in a panel discussion on IO bispecifics the following day.

The practical value of the debate and follow-up discussion wasn’t picking a winner; it was clarifying what leadership teams must decide, and to what lessons we are learning from actual hum studies with the bispecific agents:

  • Do you want integrated biology in a single asset with engineering and development complexity, but perhaps with novel, emergent biology?
  • Or do you want modularity through combinations with regimen complexity and trial burden, but also flexibility for balancing activity and tolerability in patients?

While either path can be successful, a lack of a clear thesis is increasingly unsustainable. Organizations must determine where their distinctive advantages reside, and whether to invest in molecular engineering or combinatorial clinical trials.

Implications for Biopharma Leadership and the path ahead

The current landscape reinforces that IO remains a growth field, but the “low-hanging fruit” is gone. Growth now rewards operational excellence, platform thinking, and sharp differentiation. As you refine your 2026 strategic planning, the organizations best positioned for success will be those that:

  1. Concentrate Capital: Choose fewer, higher-conviction bets with aggressive differentiation thresholds.
  2. Integrate Early: Build development strategies that incorporate manufacturing and delivery realities at the preclinical stage.
  3. Invest in Infrastructure: Treat imaging and biomarkers as core strategic infrastructure rather than optional trial add-ons.
  4. Evolve Partnering: Adopt faster, more global, and structurally creative deal-making to stay ahead of a rapidly shifting market.

Navigating this shifting landscape is best supported by experienced partners with the appropriate depth and breadth. At Lumanity, our extensive experience across IO modalities going back beyond 2011 dawn of IO, from traditional checkpoints to next-generation cell therapies, enables us to guide clients through this period of rapid regulatory and competitive evolution. Our teams maintain active engagement across multiple therapeutic areas and health authorities, from early discovery through launch and life cycle management, offering real-time insights into how key program and portfolio decisions are made, and how key regulatory and access decisions are evolving, so that we can translate knowledge and insights into actionable strategies for your specific platform, program, portfolio and company.

Contact us to learn how Lumanity can support your IO challenge.