Novartis manufacturing associate checking punches at compressing machine.
Source: Novartis
In 2010, a volcano erupted in Iceland. For Dr. Oliver Sartor, a cancer research professor at the Tulane University School of Medicine, it was a problem.
Ash from the eruption disrupted flights across Europe — including a time-sensitive shipment of experimental radioligand therapy that Sartor was expecting from Norway.
Radioligand therapy, also called radionuclide or radiopharmaceutical therapy, is a targeted form of cancer treatment that delivers radiation directly to cancer cells. While other forms of cancer treatment can target any rapidly dividing cells in the body, radioligand therapy’s precision helps limit damage to healthy, surrounding tissue.
It’s an effective form of treatment that many experts and patients are excited about, but there’s a significant catch — the medication expires within days after it’s manufactured.
A radioligand is made of a radioisotope, which emits radiation that damages cells, and a targeted ligand — a molecule that binds to specific markers on cancer cells. The radioactive component has a very short half-life, or the time it takes for the radioactivity to decrease by 50%. Once the radioactivity decays, it can no longer kill the cancer cells as effectively, which means radioligand therapy has a limited window of viability. By the time it is packaged and ready to ship, the treatment has to reach patients in a matter of days.
“It takes planning,” Sartor told CNBC. “It’s not something you just sort of walk in and say ‘Oh, I think I’ll give you [this] today.'”
Pharmaceutical company Novartis believes the returns will be worth the challenge of mastering this race against time.
Novartis currently produces two radioligand therapy treatments called Lutathera, which treats neuroendocrine tumors, a rare form of cancer in the digestive tract, and Pluvicto, for patients with a specific type of prostate cancer. They were both approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
As of October, Novartis had treated more than 16,000 neuroendocrine patients and 4,000 prostate cancer patients in the U.S. Pluvicto was approved only last March and demand is increasing. As many as 60,000 U.S. patients could ultimately benefit from the medicine, said Jeevan Virk, head of radioligand therapy at Novartis.
The drugs are expensive. The list price (wholesale acquisition cost) of Pluvicto is around $42,500, while Lutathera is around $53,200, and most patients require between four to six doses. Novartis, which generated more than $50 billion in net sales last year, believes Pluvicto holds multibillion-dollar peak sales potential.
But in order to realize that potential, Novartis has to move the medication through the supply chain seamlessly.
Expensive to produce and ship fast
Nuclear medicine has been used to treat cancer for decades, and radioligand therapy itself is not new. The therapy has previously been used to treat cancers like lymphoma, but it was not always widely accepted or used by members of the medical community.
“I think it was challenging for it to find its place,” said Dr. Delphine Chen, director of molecular imaging and therapy at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.
Dr. Leo I. Gordon, a professor of cancer research at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, said the hesitation often comes down to finances.
Producing radioligand therapy is expensive, and companies have to be willing to shoulder the costs and navigate a challenging supply chain in the hope that they can eventually make a profit.
“I’m not sure it’s a great message to send that everything is based on profit mode and all,” he said, “but it certainly does exist in medicine, oncology and the world.”
For lymphoma, it’s not a long-term investment any company has been willing to make, Gordon said. But since Pluvicto and Lutathera outperform existing treatments available for certain prostate and neuroendocrine cancers, they are being seen to have significant commercial promise.
“There’s a lot of excitement around it,” said Chen, who has administered both drugs to patients. “A lot of patients feel better on it, so that’s really exciting and gratifying to me as a physician to be able to offer something that actually is helpful with minimal toxicity.”
Novartis engineers in packaging facility.
Source: Novartis
Novartis manufactures radioligand therapy at three sites in Italy, Spain and New Jersey, and has a fourth facility slated to open in Indiana next year. Virk said between 70 to 150 people work in each facility, and the site in Indiana will be Novartis’ largest to date.
For both Pluvicto and Lutathera, the manufacturing process begins with a mineral. The minerals are enriched into a stable isotope and exposed to radiation in nuclear reactors, where they ultimately become radioactive after around two to three weeks. During the irradiation, the enriched isotopes are placed into capsules to keep them secure.
The strength of the radiation starts to decay as soon as the capsules are taken out of the reactors, which means Novartis begins a race against a ticking clock. The radioactive atoms have a half-life of just six and a half days.
The capsules are transferred to an isotope-precursor production facility where they are further purified and concentrated into a radioactive liquid salt solution. At the end of this stage, which takes around 48 hours, there is enough radioactivity in one vial to treat between 30 and 50 patients.
The final step takes place in a labeling facility where the radioactive atoms are attached to targeting molecules, or the medicine itself, and that takes around 24 hours. After the final product has been packaged and inspected for quality, it is ready to be shipped.
The drugs have different shelf lives depending on how much radiation Novartis can load into one vial. Pluvicto expires five days after it’s packaged at the factory, while Lutathera has a 72-hour shelf life.
“We basically need to get the product distributed around the world, just in 72 hours, from those three production sites,” Virk said. “This includes anywhere from Tokyo to Anchorage, so it’s an incredible distance that needs to be covered.”
Novartis scientist in lab packing materials for transportation.
Source: Novartis
Pluvicto and Lutathera are packaged inside a small lead container, roughly the size of a credit card. Lead is a strong insulator, so it doesn’t allow the radiation to escape. The drugs are also placed inside an additional container called a Type-A container, which is made of Styrofoam and helps with temperature control.
The risk of radiation exposure is so minimal that radioligand therapy is often transported via commercial airlines and cargo planes. When doses have to be transported on the ground, Virk said Novartis often uses a private courier van service to ensure they reach their destination as quickly as possible.
The process is timed to the minute, said Virk, and there’s a team of around 30 to 40 people at Novartis who oversees the complex logistics.
“It’s a 24/7 operation as you might imagine, because we really have customers around the globe that depend on ensuring that patients get their doses,” he said. “That’s really the fuel that keeps us going.”
Mistakes can happen, and things do go wrong in the supply chain occasionally, Virk said. But errors are costly, because if the shipments do not reach patients in time, the doses can’t be salvaged, and the manufacturing process has to start over.
Patients feel the difference
Radioligand therapy is administered through an IV infusion, and though it does help limit damage to healthy tissue, patients can experience some side effects.
Chen of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center said patients who receive Pluvicto can experience some nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and fatigue in the short term. “Most of them have had only mild nausea that we’ve observed, and so Pluvicto is very well tolerated compared to chemotherapy,” she said.
Chen said patients can experience many of the same symptoms with Lutathera, but the diarrhea can be exacerbated, and some patients contend with worsening bowel obstruction. In rare cases, patients may be unable to maintain their blood pressure.
But for many patients, these side effects are worth it.
Vanue Lacour Jr. was first diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2007, and underwent a “tough” surgery to remove his prostate after his diagnosis. He stayed cancer-free for eight years, but in 2015, he learned he had relapsed with an advanced form of prostate cancer that had spread into his bones.
“I was determined to win,” the 80-year-old told CNBC. “I’m determined to live.”
Lacour began a grueling round of chemotherapy that he described as a “very, very hard, harsh medicine.” He incurred painful damage to nerves in his foot and leg that he still lives with today.
The chemotherapy helped stabilize his cancer, but Lacour said his doctors were not satisfied. In 2018, Lacour enrolled in a clinical trial for Pluvicto and received six doses over eight months. Now, he is officially in remission.
“I had no real side effects,” Lacour said. “I’m getting back to doing a lot of the things I like to do.”
Radioligand therapy has also helped Josh Mailman, who learned he had a softball-sized neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas in 2007. The cancer had also spread to his liver.
“I didn’t know how much time I had,” the 61-year-old Oakland, California, resident told CNBC. “There were very few treatments for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at the time.”
Mailman decided to join a support group, and he said the other members encouraged him to learn as much as possible about his disease. In 2008, he traveled to a medical conference in Toronto where he heard about radioligand therapy for the first time. As his symptoms worsened over the next six months, his doctor agreed to give Mailman his first dose of radioligand therapy under compassionate care in 2009.
Mailman received three doses of radioligand therapy in 2009 and 2010, and he said it kept his cancer stable for the next six years. He has since had two follow-up treatments — one in 2016 and one in 2020, after the FDA approved Lutathera.
“I’m still here 15 years later,” he said. “It’s been a game-changer in the neuroendocrine tumor space.”
Because of his success with radioligand therapy, Mailman has become deeply involved in patient advocacy, where he works to raise awareness about nuclear medicine and neuroendocrine tumors.
“I would say I’m retired, my wife disagrees,” Mailman joked.
Mailman also runs virtual patient groups twice a week, where patients, friends and family members can come together to discuss their diagnosis and treatments. Mailman said radioligand therapy is discussed in more than 90% of the sessions.
“Either someone’s going to have it, someone had it, someone wants to know more about it,” he said.
During one session CNBC observed in early November, more than a dozen patients met and discussed their experiences with and concerns about radioligand therapy. Patients who had already received it answered questions about their side effects and shared tips about how to overcome fear about needles and radiation.
It is common for patients to express unease about the radiation, said Chen, but there are clear precautions in place to limit exposure and protect others.
Completion was expected in the second half of next year, the Swiss pharma group said.
Arnd Wiegmann | Reuters
The road ahead
As demand for radioligand therapy increases, Novartis’ challenge is to scale up access and awareness about the medication.
Virk, head of radioligand therapy at Novartis, said the company is working with health care systems, governments and other regulatory agencies around the world to improve its operations.
“From my perspective, [radioligand therapy] as a platform is still very much in its infancy,” he said. “So [we’re] really excited about the drug, [but] very acutely aware that we’re just at the beginning of this radioligand therapy revolution.”
Sartor at the Tulane University School of Medicine said there is still work to be done, particularly in terms of optimizing the supply chain but that radioligand therapy makes a real difference for patients.
“I think radioligand therapy has arrived in a way that is meaningful for patients today,” he said. “I’m anxious for patients to be able to receive the therapy in an FDA-approved manner, and also to do the next generation of clinical trials to ensure that even more people will have access in the future.”
Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX.
Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.
Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit.
“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.
To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.
Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform.
The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much.
The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms.
“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.
“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”
It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.
Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively.
X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.
Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.
Artificial intelligence training
X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.
“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.
Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually.
X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.
“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.
Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different.
The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center.
Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.
Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training.
“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.
Liquidated damages
Another unusual aspect of X’s new terms is its “liquidated damages” clause. The terms state that if users request, view or access more than 1 million posts – including replies, videos, images and others – in any 24-hour period they are liable for damages of $15,000.
While most individual users won’t easily approach that threshold, the clause is concerning for some, including digital researchers. They rely on the analysis of larger numbers of public posts from services like X to do their work.
X’s new terms of service are a “disturbing move that the company should reverse,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in an October statement.
“The public relies on journalists and researchers to understand whether and how the platforms are shaping public discourse, affecting our elections, and warping our relationships,” Abdo wrote. “One effect of X Corp.’s new terms of service will be to stifle that research when we need it most.”
Neither Threads nor Bluesky have anything similar to X’s liquidated damages clause.
Meta and X did not respond to requests for comment.
A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”
The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.
“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.
The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.
Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.
Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.
Concern with Congress and a changing White House
The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.
As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.
Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.
Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.
Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military
John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.
Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.
In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.
Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.
Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.
Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.
Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.
“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.
He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.
Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.