In 2010, the world of cancer treatment witnessed something remarkable. A new class of drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors showed unprecedented results in cancers that had long defied treatment. By unleashing the body’s own immune system against cancer cells, these treatments achieved what seemed impossible: long-term remission in patients with advanced melanoma who previously faced mere months to live.
This wasn’t just another incremental advance in cancer treatment. It represented a fundamental shift in how we approach the disease. Rather than bombing cancer cells with toxic chemicals or radiation, we learned to remove the molecular cloaking that cancer uses to hide from the immune system. The results were nothing short of revolutionary.
Read More: The Race to Explain Why More Young Adults Are Getting Cancer
But something curious has happened in the decade since. The breakneck pace of innovation has slowed to a crawl. While checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy (where immune cells are engineered to fight cancer) have become standard treatments for many cancers, the broader revolution we hoped for hasn’t materialized. Most cancer patients still do not get immunotherapy. Attempts to extend these treatments to more patients and other cancers or combine them with existing drugs have largely disappointed.
The easy explanation would be that we have reached the limits of what immunotherapy can do. But that would be wrong. Instead, we’re facing a perfect storm of scientific, economic, and cultural barriers that are holding back the next wave of innovation.
The fundamental challenge isn’t that we’ve exhausted immunotherapy’s potential—far from it. We simply grabbed the most obvious apple from the tree. The first breakthrough targeted just one of cancer’s many immune-evading tricks, albeit a major one that worked across multiple cancer types. There are likely other equally powerful approaches waiting to be discovered. But finding them requires both exploring these unexplored pathways and deepening our understanding of the complex dance between tumors and the immune system.
But the more troubling obstacle might be how the pharmaceutical industry has responded to these challenges. The spectacular success of checkpoint inhibitors has led to a kind of intellectual monoculture. Rather than exploring radically new approaches, most companies have focused on tweaking existing treatments or finding new combinations of approved drugs.
This conservative approach isn’t irrational. Developing new cancer drugs is enormously expensive and risky. But this risk-aversion becomes self-fulfilling: fewer novel approaches being tested means fewer opportunities for breakthrough discoveries.
The venture capital community shares some responsibility here. The same investors who pride themselves on funding revolutionary technologies in other fields have become surprisingly conventional in their biotech investments.
That’s why the path forward requires a fundamental shift in how we approach both the science and business of immunotherapy. On the scientific front, we need to develop sophisticated approaches that account for each patient’s unique characteristics and invest in basic research to understand why some patients respond brilliantly while others see no benefit.
But science alone isn’t enough. We need a new model of drug development. This might mean new forms of public-private partnerships, changes in how we structure clinical trials, or different approaches to sharing research data.
There are already signs this shift is beginning. A growing number of biotechnology companies have begun to explore innovative strategies beyond checkpoint inhibitors, though we need many more to join this movement. These pioneers understand what the rest of the field must now recognize: the story of cancer immunotherapy isn’t over—we’re just at the end of the beginning.
The initial breakthroughs proved that the immune system can be a powerful weapon against cancer. The fundamental question now is whether we’re willing to make the investments, have the patience for the science, and take the risks necessary to fulfill the full promise of immunotherapy.
