I see where you are coming from and it does make sense - down the track.
Pre-treated, yet " 81% of assets use autologous approaches, 19% use allogeneic approach" according to nature. That is across the board (blood cancers and solit tumors combined - data published in nature in October 2023). The graph posted in the article is showing that the people in charge, aware of all the pros and cons and with the corresponding certificates on their walls make a conscious decision to use autologous cells, although you can see a shift in early stage trials now in blood cancers (61 vs. 30).
The benefits (no GvHD, own cells re-engineered for own body, low risk of immune rejection) still seem the outweigh the negatives (not easily/readily accessible/feasible, cost) compared to allogeneic cells.
But again, down the track once we see the system works, yes, I'd be all for it, especially if you can combined the allogeneic approach sourced from an iPSC platform, essentially sourcing all cells from one (super) donor.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)