Pharmaceutical companies recent investment in oncology
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Pharmaceutical companies have sharply increased investment in oncology across R&D, licensing deals, M&A and manufacturing capacity, driven by a deep clinical pipeline, rising patient prevalence and the promise of next‑generation modalities such as immuno‑oncology, ADCs, cell and radioligand therapies [1] [2] [3]. That surge is visible in high‑value alliances and buyouts in 2024–2025 — including multi‑billion dollar collaborations and acquisitions — even as payers, patent cliffs and the need to demonstrate value create counter‑pressure on industry strategy [4] [5] [6].
1. Why oncology is the industry’s magnet right now: market size, pipeline and spending growth
The oncology field attracts investment because the clinical pipeline is both large and active — oncology constituted roughly one‑third of global clinical compounds in the late 2010s and continues to be a declared focus for major pharma, while global oncology spending grew rapidly (estimated average annual growth 11.9% from 2020–2024) and is expected to remain elevated into the mid‑2020s [1] [2]. Market projections and reports published through 2024–2025 forecast sustained expansion in revenues and a multiyear runway for oncology therapeutics as aging populations and better diagnostics increase demand [3] [7].
2. Where companies are putting their money: R&D modalities and strategic deals
Investment priorities include immuno‑oncology combos, antibody‑drug conjugates (ADCs), T‑cell engagers and cell therapies; large pharmas are filling their pipelines via collaborations and licences — for example AbbVie’s $2.1 billion collaboration with Xilio on tumor‑activated antibody immunotherapies and Bristol Myers Squibb’s multi‑billion dollar pact with BioNTech to co‑develop a PD‑1/L1xVEGF‑A bispecific — deals that include substantial upfront and milestone payments [4]. Pfizer’s equity and licensing moves, and acquisitions such as Pfizer’s earlier strategic buys and Seagen’s integration by Pfizer in 2023 noted across market commentary, illustrate the blend of in‑house R&D and external asset buys shaping portfolios [4] [8].
3. M&A and licensing: opportunistic buying and China’s rising role
Deal activity has been a core channel for investment: several large 2024–2025 transactions and opportunistic acquisitions by pharma reflect a strategy to buy innovation as valuations reset, with M&A described as “fuelling” biotech activity in oncology [5]. China has emerged as a vibrant source of oncology assets and licensing opportunities, attracting Western firms seeking cost‑efficient early programmes and local partnerships; commentators signal high‑value licensing between Western pharmas and Chinese biotechs as a defining 2025 trend [9].
4. Strategic tensions: value, patents and where returns will be tested
Despite dealmaking and R&D intensity, companies face structural constraints: patent cliffs for non‑oncology blockbusters push firms to replace revenues with oncology assets, but payers and policymakers are increasing scrutiny on drug costs and value demonstration, requiring pharma to balance ‘table stakes’ investments with differentiating capabilities [6] [9]. Analysts warn that spending growth could slow by the late 2020s as backbone therapies face generic and biosimilar competition, which will test commercial returns on many newer, high‑cost agents [2].
5. What this means for innovation and risks to watch
The surge of capital, deals and modality diversity promises more mechanisms of action and potentially faster patient impact — historical forecasts expected many more mechanisms approved in key cancers by mid‑decade, and 2025 deal patterns underscore a push toward bispecifics, ADCs and cell therapies [1] [4]. But the narrative of relentless progress must be balanced: heavy deal valuations create integration and execution risks, dependence on combinations and biomarkers raises development complexity, and rising global demand will collide with access disparities and pricing pressures that the sources note without fully resolving [4] [6] [2]. Where sources are silent on specific clinical outcomes or shareholder returns beyond announced terms, reporting cannot adjudicate ultimate efficacy or long‑term profitability.