Table 4.
The mean and median likelihood of each scenario
| Mean likelihood (median) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| All respondents (n = 29) | Only familiar and experts (n = 23) | ≥ 1 year experience (n = 10) | |
| Base case scenario | |||
| “Base case” | 54.3% (50%) | 51.8 (45%) | 55% (55%) |
| “What if” scenarios | |||
| “Competition” | 46.4% (50%) | 47.6% (50%) | 42.5% (30%) |
| “TIL more effective” | 51.9% (50%) | 52.4% (50%) | 52% (50%) |
| “Biomarker” | 36.7% (35%) | 38.3% (35%) | 39.5% (35%) |
| “TCR therapy” | 32.0% (30%) | 29.3% (25%) | 22.5% (20%) |
| “Patients unconvinced” | 52.9% (60%) | 53.6% (63%) | 45% (50%) |
| “2nd line treatment” | 52.8% (50%) | 53.7% (50%) | 53.5% (50%) |
| “3rd line treatment” | 54.5% (50%) | 56.8% (50%) | 67% (68%) |
| “Combination therapy” | 57.3% (63%) | 56.7% (60%) | 57% (60%) |
| “Clinicians unconvinced” | 50.6% (50%) | 51.6% (50%) | 51% (50%) |
| “Low cost competition” | 29.5% (20%) | 28.7% (15%) | 27.5% (23%) |
| “Influence by companies” | 50.00% (58%) | 51.7% (55%) | 49% (55%) |
| “Less IL2 treatment” | 35.9% (50.%) | 39.1% (50%) | 40.5% (50%) |
| “TIL production outsourced” | 53.0% (50%) | 51.5% (50%) | 44% (45%) |
| “Automatic TIL production” | 58.4% (63%) | 57.0% (60%) | 62% (70%) |
The first column shows the likelihood by all respondents, the second column shows the likelihood judged by the respondents that judged themselves as expert and familiar and the third column shows the respondents having ≥1 year experience with TIL therapy. The scenarios displayed in bold were labelled as “likely” based on the evaluated likelihood (≥55% in one of these columns) (Fig. 2)