Lessons from CTMC: Rethinking the Infrastructure Behind Cell Therapy Innovation

Part 30 of our Bridging the Gap Series (Summary of the webinar session held in May 2026)

For all the momentum in cell and gene therapy, one challenge continues to define the field: how to move breakthrough science into patients faster, more efficiently, and at meaningful scale.

Over the past decade, cell therapies have demonstrated extraordinary clinical potential. But while the science has advanced rapidly, the operational systems surrounding manufacturing, clinical development, and delivery have often struggled to keep pace.

That was the focus of May’s Bridging the Gap webinar, where the conversation turned toward a critical but often overlooked question: what infrastructure model is actually needed for cell therapy to scale globally?

Hosted by Dr. Patrick Hanley, Chief and Director of the Cellular Therapy Program at Children’s National Hospital, the session featured Dr. Jason Bock, CEO of CTMC, alongside George Eastwood, Executive Director of the Emily Whitehead Foundation. Together, they explored how new models connecting manufacturing, hospitals, regulators, and developers could help accelerate innovation while improving patient access worldwide.

The discussion ranged from Investigational New Drug (IND) acceleration and clinical trial bottlenecks to regional manufacturing networks, regulatory learning, and the importance of reducing redundancy across the field.

Why Cell Therapy Requires a Different Infrastructure Model

One of the central themes of the discussion was that cell therapy does not fit neatly into the traditional pharmaceutical model.

As Dr. Bock explained, conventional therapeutics rely on highly centralized manufacturing systems that operate independently from the clinical setting. Small molecules and biologics can be produced in large batches, shipped broadly, and dispensed through pharmacies with relatively little direct interaction between manufacturers and hospitals.

Autologous cell therapies fundamentally change that relationship.

Because therapies are manufactured from a patient’s own cells in real time, manufacturing and clinical care become deeply interconnected. Hospitals, clinicians, and manufacturing teams must coordinate collection, logistics, production scheduling, release testing, and infusion in ways that traditional therapeutics never required.

As Dr. Bock explained, “For cell therapies, because they’re manufactured from a patient’s own cells in real time, there’s a fundamentally different shape of that supply chain.” He added that one of the field’s biggest bottlenecks has been “trying to stuff that different shape of a supply chain into the model that exists” for traditional therapeutics.

CTMC’s model was designed specifically to address that challenge by integrating advanced manufacturing capabilities directly alongside one of the world’s largest cancer centers, MD Anderson Cancer Center. Rather than treating manufacturing and clinical operations as separate systems, the organization was built around the idea that they must evolve together.

Speed Matters Because Patients Cannot Wait

A particularly powerful part of the discussion centered on why operational speed is not simply a business metric in cell therapy – it is directly tied to patient outcomes.

Dr. Bock described one program in which a biotech partner initially projected a 24-month timeline to IND submission. By integrating manufacturing, regulatory planning, clinical alignment, and operational execution early in development, CTMC and its partner were able to reduce that timeline to just 16 months.

For the company, that acceleration represented a major development advantage.

But for one patient, it meant something much more significant.

Dr. Bock shared the story of a 29-year-old mother of three with metastatic solid tumor disease who learned about the trial before it opened and repeatedly contacted the principal investigator hoping to enroll. She ultimately became the first patient treated on the study. After initially being given only months to live, her tumors began shrinking over time, and several years later she remains alive and healthy.

The experience reinforced a critical point for the panel: delays in development timelines are not abstract operational problems. In rapidly progressing diseases, even a few additional months can determine whether a patient ever has the opportunity to access an experimental therapy at all.

As Dr. Bock noted during the session, shortening the cycle time between discovery, clinical evaluation, and iteration is essential if the field wants to continue advancing next-generation therapies more quickly.

Clinical Trial Bureaucracy and the Push for Faster Development

The conversation also explored a growing concern across the industry: the increasing complexity and administrative burden surrounding clinical trial activation.

Dr. Hanley and George Eastwood pointed to the growing interest in alternative clinical development models emerging in regions such as Australia and China, where streamlined activation pathways have allowed some companies to move into trials significantly faster than in the United States.

Dr. Bock acknowledged that while cost differences matter, much of the momentum behind these international models comes from reducing operational friction rather than simply reducing expense.

One of CTMC’s major priorities has therefore been reducing the time between IND clearance and first patient enrollment. Through its close integration with MD Anderson and repeated optimization of internal workflows, the organization has engineered a process capable of activating many studies in fewer than 100 days – substantially faster than traditional activation timelines that can often extend beyond six months.

Importantly, the panel emphasized that this acceleration does not come from bypassing safety or regulatory rigor. Instead, it comes from reducing redundant bureaucracy, improving coordination, and designing systems intentionally around the needs of advanced therapies.

As George Eastwood noted during the discussion, the challenge is not simply scientific innovation. Operational inefficiency itself has become a meaningful barrier to patient access.

Building a Global Manufacturing Network

Another major theme was globalization and the emergence of regional manufacturing models.

Dr. Bock discussed CTMC’s recently announced partnership with Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in Brazil, where the organizations are working together to establish South America’s first locally manufactured tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) clinical trial program.

The initiative is intended not simply as a technology transfer exercise, but as part of a broader effort to create regionalized manufacturing ecosystems capable of supporting local patient access, workforce development, and long-term scalability.

Teams from Brazil spent months training at CTMC facilities in Houston, while both organizations worked closely with Brazilian regulators to establish the clinical and manufacturing framework needed to launch the program locally.

This work forms part of the broader CTMC Global Network Alliance, which aims to create interconnected manufacturing and clinical hubs capable of sharing operational know-how while adapting therapies to regional healthcare systems.

The long-term vision described during the webinar was a future where hospitals no longer manage dozens of disconnected vendor relationships, portals, shipping systems, and manufacturing pathways for different therapies. Instead, regional manufacturing centers could function more like integrated “cell therapy pharmacies,” supporting multiple products through a more unified operational infrastructure.

Reducing Redundancy Across the Field

The discussion closed with a broader reflection on one of the field’s persistent inefficiencies: repeated reinvention.

As Dr. Bock noted, many organizations continue solving the same manufacturing, regulatory, and operational problems independently, even when the underlying lessons are often similar.

CTMC’s model attempts to reduce some of that duplication by sharing non-proprietary operational knowledge, regulatory experience, and development strategies across partners. That includes helping sponsors prepare for FDA interactions, structuring regulatory pathways, and developing data-driven approaches for novel therapy platforms.

Dr. Bock also highlighted how much duplicated effort still exists across the cell therapy landscape, particularly as organizations build manufacturing, analytical, and operational capabilities independently. While the panel acknowledged that fully open data-sharing across industry remains difficult in competitive and highly regulated environments, there was broad agreement that the field must find better ways to accelerate collective learning if innovation is going to scale sustainably.

Why This Matters

One of the clearest takeaways from the session was that scaling cell therapy will require more than better science alone.

The next phase of growth depends equally on manufacturing strategy, operational design, regulatory coordination, workforce development, and new models of collaboration between hospitals, developers, and manufacturers.

Organizations like CTMC are helping test what those future systems might look like – not only in the United States, but increasingly through global partnerships designed to expand access regionally while maintaining high standards of clinical and manufacturing rigor.

As the field moves beyond its first generation of commercial therapies, the ability to shorten development cycles, reduce fragmentation, and build connected delivery networks may become just as important as the therapies themselves.

Key Takeaways

Stay Updated

Join us for the next Bridging the Gap webinar as leaders across cell and gene therapy continue exploring the science, infrastructure, and collaboration shaping the future of advanced therapies.

Explore more in the Bridging the Gap Series