Anti-cancer T-cell immunotherapy has been gaining popularity in...

Anti-cancer T-cell immunotherapy has been gaining popularity in the past few years. However, as a kind of individualised treatment the cost-effectiveness seems an obvious limiting factor to its wide application. Below is a quote from an article on the internet.  

"We've got much, much better now with adoptive cell transfer," Rosenberg told me, "but it's not widely available."  The treatment has to be individually designed for each patient, which makes it enormously expensive, and so less valuable to pharmaceutical companies.

"They want a drug, and they don't care if you spend five hundred million dollars developing the first vial, as long as they can produce the second vial for a dollar," Rosenberg said. Because his work is experimental, it has been supported by federal funds. Eventually, however, these therapies will be priced by calculating how much they offset the costs of conventional treatments. Although the new procedures could run to hundreds of thousands of dollars, they might still prove less costly than the money spent on chemotherapy, hospitalisation, and hospice care for the many patients who currently cannot be cured.

Patrys' safe and natural human antibody vs burgeoning T-cell immunotherapy, which one has better prospects and will prevail eventually?