Cross-Collaboration is Key for Cellular Therapies Options Across Cancer Types

The 2025 National ICE-T Symposium gave oncology experts an opportunity to share ideas regarding the administration of cellular therapies.

At the 2025 National Immune Cell Effector Therapy (ICE-T) Symposium, Zahra Mahmoudjafari, PharmD, MBA, BCOP, FHOPA, spoke with CancerNetwork® about some of the most exciting and pressing takeaways in the cellular therapy space across various disease states.

According to her, during the solid tumor session and panel discussion, it was evident that the space is advancing, though there hasn’t been a large expansion of cellular therapies in solid tumors as there has been in blood cancers. The discussion provided the opportunity to share ideas, as she noted that hematologic oncologists have been working with cellular therapies and managing their unique toxicities longer than solid tumor oncologists have. Throughout the interview, she stressed the need for cross-collaboration and bidirectional communication between solid tumor oncologists and hematologic oncologists.

Even considering the toxicities associated with cellular therapies, Mahmoudjafari stood by the science and the efficacy that the agents have demonstrated thus far. The problem, now, is handling the logistics of whether a center is able to administer and monitor patients who receive cellular therapies for the required amount of time. The multidisciplinary teams are important to this aspect of handling the logistics, she added.

Mahmoudjafari is a clinical pharmacy manager in the Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapeutics at the University of Kansas Health System.

CancerNetwork: What were some key themes that emerged across the presentations featured in the Solid Cancer session?

Mahmoudjafari: The solid tumor session that I had the privilege of moderating was jam-packed. We started with updates in melanoma, and then we pivoted very quickly to [gastrointestinal] cancers, and then finally updates in cellular therapies in lung cancer. Each session was different from the next, but the focus was that we now have active cellular therapies in solid tumors. How does the new technology and the ability to use cell therapeutics in solid tumors—how is it going, and where is the field going next? There have been many trials in this space with a lot of progress, but a lot of lessons were learned in the process. All 3 sessions before the panel discussion touched on the advancements, but also the potential cons of cell therapies and solid tumors, and why we haven’t seen a big expansion to this point in the solid tumors, as we’ve seen in blood cancers.

What key points stood out to you during the solid cancer panel discussion? How can these ideas be applied from a clinical pharmacist’s perspective?

The panel discussion was incredibly informative. It allows the opportunity to do some idea sharing, and one thing that was acknowledged in the panels and in solid tumor presentations was that the solid tumor oncologists are just now learning about some of the unique toxicities that our hematology teams have worked on and have treated patients for many years now. There needs to be cross-collaboration…such that, on the hematology side, we help our oncology colleagues with the unique toxicities. Opposite to that, the oncologists can help us understand some of the unique characteristics of a patient with solid tumors. They are very different than the patients that we treat day in and day out.

The panel discussion highlighted that there does need to be some bidirectional communication between hematology and oncology. Looking at the challenges between academic practice and community practices, we know that in the setting of solid tumors, you’re going to naturally have more patients who will be eligible for these treatments. Therefore, it’s important that we establish the operations and the logistics of these therapies very thoroughly to make sure that they can reach the patients they need to reach in the settings they need to be in. There was a lot of discussion related to technology capabilities, treatment at home, and different ways that we can manage some of the unique toxicities that we’re beginning to see in this space.

How should practices weigh the potential benefits of different cellular therapy options for patients with various solid tumor indications?

The science is speaking for itself. We believe in the value and efficacy of these therapies and these disease states as they continue to emerge. What seems to be happening now, though, is more logistics and whether or not a center can safely administer these therapies and monitor the patients for the duration that they need to be monitored for. As a pharmacist, that’s where the multidisciplinary care team comes in. Our providers are incredible at patient selection and educating our patients related to treatment, but it’s the multidisciplinary care team that seals the deal in terms of making sure they can make it through the transitions of care, understand their regimen, understand their toxicities, and then are appropriately monitored. Being able to keep patients on these innovative treatments is incredibly important, too.

What strategies can help mitigate potential toxicities in patients receiving cellular therapies while maintaining their quality of life?

That’s still a question that remains to be answered, given that these are newer. It’s only been about a year that we’ve had bispecific [antibodies] in the lung cancer space. Conferences like [ICE-T] and other opportunities that we have to collaborate, have communication and discussion, idea generation, and the ability to publish our real-world data are going to be universally helpful. As we continue to learn how to best manage these toxicities—which are new—we have to keep watching and keep being innovative in the way we treat these patients because we are seeing some unique safety risks, and we need to be able to treat those appropriately.

What do you hope others take away from the presentations and the panel discussion featured in the solid cancer session?

I work in the hematologic malignancy space, but I’ve been working with our oncologists on the logistics and flow of how these patients should be treated at my center. What I took away was learning about the science and the “why” behind some of these incredible treatments. It’s exciting. I could have talked for another hour, and I probably would have just been as riveting to listen to. From a takeaway standpoint, it continues to help me understand how we can help support [the patients] from the hematology side, and again, that bidirectional communication to understand how they can, in turn, support us as we learn about their disease states. It highlights the key niche of teamwork, whether that be through the multidisciplinary team or across different disciplines.